Hi!
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:37:16 +0100, I wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:09:33 +0100, I wrote:
> > Also known as: »I found another one«.
>
> (That's the last one I'm currently seeing.) Again depending on
> usability, we either get:
>
> checking for [GCC] option to accept ISO C89... none n
Hi!
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 14:34:09 -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> For libc, I think always using $CC -E is fine. You don't need to bother
> with the MSG_CHECKING and CACHE_VAL boilerplate.
Ah, I thought the caching was required to have config.status' --recheck
do the right thing. Which actually
As to the general case, I think float.h is probably the best choice
and stdarg.h probably just as good. It's been a very long time since
anything but GCC itself installed headers by those names.
For libc, I think always using $CC -E is fine. You don't need to bother
with the MSG_CHECKING and CAC
Hi!
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:09:33 +0100, I wrote:
> Also known as: »I found another one«.
(That's the last one I'm currently seeing.) Again depending on
usability, we either get:
checking for [GCC] option to accept ISO C89... none needed
Or:
checking for [GCC] option to accept ISO C89
Hi!
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:18:41 +, "Joseph S. Myers"
wrote:
> Really, for glibc bootstrapping I don't think you want to include any
> headers there. If $CPP is defined and nonempty, use that, otherwise use
> $CC -E; no testing for a "working" preprocessor is needed; we require GCC
> 4.3
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Issue 2: Though it will of course never be completely fail-safe,
> candidate header files I identified to remedy this issue and to be used
> in _AC_PROG_PREPROC_WORKS_IFELSE instead of limits.h are: float.h,
> stdarg.h, stddef.h (though the latter migh
