[patch] avoid c99 declaration

[Khem Raj]

On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Peter Kjellerstedt
<peter.kjellerstedt at axis.com> wrote:
>> -----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)...

No. its only turned on if gcc supports it. what I proposed was to
have it turned on always.

>
> //Peter
> _______________________________________________
> uClibc mailing list
> uClibc at uclibc.org
> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
>