Greg Hudson wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-09-18 at 12:10, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>> I don't know of a passable reason why 'std=c89' should be part of
>> maintainer
>> mode. That doesn't make much sense to me: it doesn't help *that* much.
>
> I believe we put it in because the vast majority of our trunk builds are
> done with gcc, such that we could use a gcc feature without realizing
> it.
>
> However, the gcc maintainers are pretty clear that -std=c89 is not an
> ANSI conformance checker. It really only disables the gcc features
> necessary to make ANSI-compliant code compile. For instance, you could
> have a local variable named "inline" in a valid C89 program, so -std=c89
> disables the "inline" keyword. So you're right, it doesn't help that
> much. If we added the -pedantic flag it might help a little more, but
> we'd have even more issues with header files not under our control.
>
>> I vote that we stop adding it in maintainer mode. -- justin
>
> Agreed (though my position here has always been clear).
Then perhaps we should be adding -pedantic in maintainer-mode, subject to an
autoconf test (similar to what we already have for -std=c89) which turns it
off if the system headers can't cope with it?
Max.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Sep 18 18:57:26 2004