Re: AC_PROG_CC_* shouldn't append multiple options

[Andrew W. Nosenko]

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Adrian Bunk <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 05:41:36PM +0300, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Adrian Bunk <address@hidden> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 03:59:14PM +0300, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote:
>>...
>> >> Or, you asked "after what what compiler (plus language support
>> >> library) should be considered as enough close to c99 for be counted as
>> >> c99"?
>> >> For me, the AC_PROG_CC_99 was good enough in that respect.
>> >
>> > You have ensured not to use any C99 features not tested by
>> > AC_PROG_CC_C99 in your code?
>>
>> Are you indeed belive in compiler, which claims to be c99 and doesn't
>> support  _Bool and variadic macros?
>
> These two are documented to be tested by AC_PROG_CC_C99.
>

Yes, I know.
It were you, not me, who questioned my knowledge about what I do.

-- 
Andrew W. Nosenko <address@hidden>