From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 30 14:21:53 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0DDC106564A; Sat, 30 May 2009 14:21:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ed@hoeg.nl) Received: from palm.hoeg.nl (mx0.hoeg.nl [IPv6:2001:7b8:613:100::211]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 861878FC13; Sat, 30 May 2009 14:21:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ed@hoeg.nl) Received: by palm.hoeg.nl (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E565E1CD94; Sat, 30 May 2009 16:21:52 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 16:21:52 +0200 From: Ed Schouten To: Gabor Kovesdan Message-ID: <20090530142152.GS48776@hoeg.nl> References: <20090529123633.GM48776@hoeg.nl> <20090530140800.GR48776@hoeg.nl> <4A213F84.1000704@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ccJhwVfaC+fHwTsl" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A213F84.1000704@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, gerald@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [Patch] Proposal: USE_GNU89 switch X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 14:21:54 -0000 --ccJhwVfaC+fHwTsl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Gabor Kovesdan 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 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--