[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AC_PROG_CC_* shouldn't append multiple options
From: |
Andrew W. Nosenko |
Subject: |
Re: AC_PROG_CC_* shouldn't append multiple options |
Date: |
Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:18:03 +0300 |
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:
> Yup, macros that invoke AC_PROG_CC_C89 and AC_PROG_CC_C99
> are trouble. They're trouble now, and they'll continue to
> be trouble. It's not clear how to fix this, other than
> to advise people to avoid those macros, which the patch
> does in the manual.
>
OK. Assuming that AC_PROG_CC_C99 deprecated and then removed, how I
supposed to express "give me c99 or higher compiler or raise error if
there only c89 or lower compiler found"? In another words: How can I
set the _lower_ bound of C standard support, after that configure
should stop trying and just raises an error?
--
Andrew W. Nosenko <address@hidden>
- AC_PROG_CC_* shouldn't append multiple options, Adrian Bunk, 2012/09/20
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_* shouldn't append multiple options, Paul Eggert, 2012/09/20
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_* shouldn't append multiple options, Adrian Bunk, 2012/09/20
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_* shouldn't append multiple options, Paul Eggert, 2012/09/21
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_* shouldn't append multiple options,
Andrew W. Nosenko <=
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_* shouldn't append multiple options, Adrian Bunk, 2012/09/21
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_* shouldn't append multiple options, Andrew W. Nosenko, 2012/09/21
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_* shouldn't append multiple options, Adrian Bunk, 2012/09/21
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_* shouldn't append multiple options, Andrew W. Nosenko, 2012/09/21
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_* shouldn't append multiple options, Adrian Bunk, 2012/09/23
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_* shouldn't append multiple options, Andrew W. Nosenko, 2012/09/23
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_* shouldn't append multiple options, Adrian Bunk, 2012/09/21
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_* shouldn't append multiple options, Adrian Bunk, 2012/09/21