[patch] avoid c99 declaration

[Khem Raj]

On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 1:35 AM, 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 Khem Raj
>> Sent: den 1 augusti 2010 10:11
>> To: Peter Kjellerstedt
>> Cc: uclibc at uclibc.org
>> Subject: Re: [patch] avoid c99 declaration
>>
>> 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.
>
> And if the compiler does not support it, how do you propose to
> turn it on?

huh? if C99 is a requirement then you better use a compiler that supports it.
thats what is meant with adding a c99 requirement to uclibc.

I thought gcc is not the only compiler used to compile
> uClibc, but I may be wrong as I never used anything other than
> gcc myself.

c99 is not a gcc standard its a ISO C language standard gcc is one of
the compilers
that support it.

>
> //Peter
>