This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: hierarchical projects with configure scripts
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Tom Tromey <tom at tromey dot com>
- Cc: sergiodj at redhat dot com, tom at tromey dot com, bruno at clisp dot org, eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu, bug-gnulib at gnu dot org, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2018 09:59:33 +0300
- Subject: Re: hierarchical projects with configure scripts
- References: <87lg8pm4li.fsf@redhat.com> <2805333.pL1CPYTu1R@omega> <87y3cokaai.fsf@redhat.com> <2373646.KA5HVAegPz@omega> <87h8jck0eu.fsf@redhat.com> <87lg8mz2zm.fsf@tromey.com> <875zzqgj09.fsf@redhat.com> <874lf9sqft.fsf@tromey.com>
> From: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>
> Cc: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>, Bruno Haible <bruno@clisp.org>, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>, bug-gnulib@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2018 00:05:26 -0600
>
> Sergio> I don't know if just requiring C99 or later would be enough to solve
> Sergio> this problem, but it's something to consider for GDB, I think.
>
> I personally think it would be fine -- C99 is nearly 20 years old now,
A nit: it should be okay to require C99 for the compiler, but we
should not require that for the library (including header files),
because MinGW, for example, uses a C99-compliant GCC, but the headers
and the function from the standard C library are those from Windows,
which are not 100% C99.