[patch] avoid c99 declaration

Peter Kjellerstedt peter.kjellerstedt at axis.com
Sun Aug 1 06:22:02 UTC 2010


> -----Original Message-----
> From: uclibc-bounces at uclibc.org
> [mailto:uclibc-bounces at uclibc.org] On Behalf Of Mike Frysinger
> Sent: den 1 augusti 2010 04:08
> To: uclibc at uclibc.org
> Subject: Re: [patch] avoid c99 declaration
>
> On Saturday, July 31, 2010 16:22:35 Khem Raj wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
> > > On 7/28/2010 7:51 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > >> On Monday, June 21, 2010 06:39:12 Gianluigi Tiesi wrote:
> > >>> While compiling uClibc inside openwrt build system I
> > >>> have somehow the compiler without -std=c99 flash (since
> > >>> adding id causes me some troubles)
> > >>
> > >> why dont we fix uClibc to use c99 then ?  if your toolchain
> > >> is new enough to support TLS as NPTL requires, then it's
> > >> new enough to support c99 features. we shouldnt go throwing
> > >> frivolous patches at the NPTL code when we're merely
> > >> importing it from glibc.  realistically, we dont have the
> > >> man power to maintain a fork which means we need to be
> > >> sticking as lose to glibc as possible here.
> > >
> > > I definitely agree with Mike. Even if changes are dummy,
> > > merging effort with updated version of NPTL/glibc could be
> > > too huge.
> >
> > yes I agree. I proposed to make C99 a requirement for uclibc.
>
> i'm not necessarily set on all of uClibc, but certainly any part
> that utilizes TLS.  i guess we could enable -std=gnu99 in the
> build and see who (if any) complains.
>
> if no one has anything else, i'll revert the changes in
> question and add -std=gnu99.
> -mike

You already have this in Rules.mak:

CPU_CFLAGS-y += $(call check_gcc,-std=gnu99,)

so C99 should already be a requirement (at least for gcc)...

//Peter


More information about the uClibc mailing list