On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 05:58:05PM -0700, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2009-08-04 15:44:05 -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> > But AFAIK neither Posix nor the C89 standard nor the C99 standard
> > say anything about -D and -U flags. It's the Single UNIX specification
> > that is the issue, and it refers to
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Dave Korn wrote:
> to integrate this behaviour into the driver. Perhaps we could even do the old
> behave-differently-according-to-argv[0] trick, although I'm not sure if that
> isn't slightly discouraged these days.
The proper thing is to build a separate driver binary (opti
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2009-08-05 10:07:49 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> GCC does not install an executable called "c99". Or one called
>> "c89". So what any standard requires of them is irrelevant to us,
>> except that we would want to make it possible to support that mode
>> of operation. And
On 2009-08-05 10:07:49 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> GCC does not install an executable called "c99". Or one called
> "c89". So what any standard requires of them is irrelevant to us,
> except that we would want to make it possible to support that mode
> of operation. And we do; with our predictable
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2009-08-04 15:44:05 -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
>> But AFAIK neither Posix nor the C89 standard nor the C99 standard
>> say anything about -D and -U flags. It's the Single UNIX specification
>> that is the issue, and it refers to a command that is spelled "c89",
>> or (in la
On 2009-08-04 15:44:05 -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> But AFAIK neither Posix nor the C89 standard nor the C99 standard
> say anything about -D and -U flags. It's the Single UNIX specification
> that is the issue, and it refers to a command that is spelled "c89",
> or (in later versions) "c99", not "gcc
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 11:42:51AM -0700, Ross Smith wrote:
>
> On 2009-08-05, at 04:03, Joe Buck wrote:
> >
> > Another alternative would be an extra flag that would turn on
> > conformance
> > to the spec.
>
> Traditionally spelled -posixly-correct in other GNU software. This would
> presumably
On 2009-08-05, at 04:03, Joe Buck wrote:
Another alternative would be an extra flag that would turn on
conformance
to the spec.
Traditionally spelled -posixly-correct in other GNU software. This would
presumably also affect other options, such as making the default -
std=c99
instead of g
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:03:56AM -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > "Erwin" == Unruh, Erwin writes:
>
> Erwin> In current gcc the order of options -D and -U is significant. The
> Erwin> Single Unix(r) Specification explicitly specifies that the order
> Erwin> should not matter for the c89 command
> "Erwin" == Unruh, Erwin writes:
Erwin> In current gcc the order of options -D and -U is significant. The
Erwin> Single Unix(r) Specification explicitly specifies that the order
Erwin> should not matter for the c89 command. It reads (cited from
Erwin> version 2, which is ten years old):
Erw
On 2009-08-04 08:23:52 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> User-specified CFLAGS are always passed last in the Makefiles (at
> least for Automake, but it is a good practice in general) so that
> the user can override options like -D, -U, -O, -g, -f, -m.
>
> The specified behavior would make this impossi
On 2009-08-03 15:52:37 +0200, Unruh, Erwin wrote:
> In current gcc the order of options -D and -U is significant. The
> Single Unix(r) Specification explicitly specifies that the order
> should not matter for the c89 command. It reads (cited from
> version 2, which is ten years old):
[...]
FYI, I
On 08/03/2009 03:52 PM, Unruh, Erwin wrote:
2) Is this a bug?
I think it's a bug in the specification.
User-specified CFLAGS are always passed last in the Makefiles (at least
for Automake, but it is a good practice in general) so that the user can
override options like -D, -U, -O, -g, -f, -m
13 matches
Mail list logo
