Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 16:21:52 +0200 From: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> To: Gabor Kovesdan <gabor@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, gerald@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [Patch] Proposal: USE_GNU89 switch Message-ID: <20090530142152.GS48776@hoeg.nl> In-Reply-To: <4A213F84.1000704@FreeBSD.org> References: <20090529123633.GM48776@hoeg.nl> <20090530140800.GR48776@hoeg.nl> <4A213F84.1000704@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--ccJhwVfaC+fHwTsl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Gabor Kovesdan <gabor@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > I don't think it's a good idea. This knob is completely superfluous and = =20 > thus should be avoided. One can just add -std to CFLAGS from a port =20 > Makefile. Forced build are also possible without this stuff, you can set = =20 > this in /etc/make.conf. So how can we be sure all C compilers implement this switch? In bsd.port.mk I see some traces of ICC support. Using this approach it would also be possible to remap certain C standards to different compilers. Really, I really don't care how it's done, whether it's a flag or added to the compiler flags directly. I'm just saying adding it to CFLAGS directly sounds like a very bad idea. Adding it to /etc/make.conf sounds even worse, because it probably only confuses (autoconf) scripts that try to figure out a way to make the compiler speak C99. --=20 Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> WWW: http://80386.nl/ --ccJhwVfaC+fHwTsl Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkohQQAACgkQ52SDGA2eCwVLVACfbv2Qs3Vs7aUKoVDIgQKOKI/b NlkAnj1MJTRfX2vJuSglMnTYQFSJ1tJD =vxK4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ccJhwVfaC+fHwTsl--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090530142152.GS48776>