[patch] avoid c99 declaration

[Peter Kjellerstedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Khem Raj [mailto:raj.khem at gmail.com]
> Sent: den 1 augusti 2010 10:48
> To: Peter Kjellerstedt
> Cc: uclibc at uclibc.org
> Subject: Re: [patch] avoid c99 declaration
>
> 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.

What I meant was that -std=gnu99 is a gcc specific option.
However, as Bernhard mentioned, gcc is needed in practice to
compile uClibc, so then that is not a problem any more.

> 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.

Of course. However, _how_ to require C99 is compiler specific.

//Peter