[patch] avoid c99 declaration

[Khem Raj]

On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Peter Kjellerstedt
<peter.kjellerstedt at axis.com> wrote:
>> -----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.

well -gnu99 is c99+gnu features gcc also supports -std=c99 for standard only
implementation.

> 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
>