Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 18:05:14 +0200 From: Mel Flynn <mel.flynn+fbsd.ports@mailing.thruhere.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, gerald@freebsd.org Cc: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl>, Gabor Kovesdan <gabor@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [Patch] Proposal: USE_GNU89 switch Message-ID: <200905301805.15180.mel.flynn%2Bfbsd.ports@mailing.thruhere.net> In-Reply-To: <20090530142152.GS48776@hoeg.nl> References: <20090529123633.GM48776@hoeg.nl> <4A213F84.1000704@FreeBSD.org> <20090530142152.GS48776@hoeg.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 30 May 2009 16:21:52 Ed Schouten wrote:
> 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.
Are there any edge cases of (antiquated) ports that (indirectly) use
bsd.sys.mk and as such get hit by:
11 # the default is gnu99 for now
12 CSTD ?= gnu99
In other words should one clean CFLAGS of -std before applying the forced one,
similar as to what WITH_DEBUG in ports does for -O*.
--
Mel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200905301805.15180.mel.flynn%2Bfbsd.ports>