minimal requirements for build C compiler?
Rob Landley
rob at landley.net
Fri May 26 15:34:24 UTC 2006
On Thursday 25 May 2006 9:31 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 19 May 2006 17:08, Rob Landley wrote:
> > On Thursday 18 May 2006 9:39 am, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > > what C standard is the build compiler for busybox expected to adhere
> > > to? more specifically, can i expect C99 so i can use designated
> > > initializers for aggregate types?
> >
> > Yup. We went to c99 in 1.1.1, when we dropped support for gcc 2.95.
>
> not to dig up the previous thread, but you're willing to drop support for
> software released in 2001 (gcc-2.95.3) but not software released in 2000
> (make-3.79.1) ?
A) What I'm not willing to drop support for yet is Red Hat 9 as a build
environment, which according to the dates on the iso images at
archive.download.redhat.com was released in September 2003.
B) c99 is a spec that's been official for seven years, and thus dates to
before any of the actual implementations in question. Nobody's proposing
going to a new _spec_ for make, they're proposing requiring a specific
version of one implementation of it. The move to c99 allows us to be _less_
tied to gcc, because there's a spec. We dropped 2.95 because it didn't
support that specification.
C) I'm a bit uncomfortable about requiring such a narrow range of versions of
a single tool (GNU make, either the most recent two dot releases or a CVS
snapshot). Gcc has 3.2.x, 3.3.x, 3.4.x, 4.0.x, and 4.1.x each with as many
or more dot releases than make 3.8.x, plus various clones of its syntax
(Intel's C Compiler, TCC) that I'd be interested to hear the results of
people trying to build under.
Does that help you understand my position?
> -mike
Rob
--
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.
More information about the busybox
mailing list