[patch] avoid c99 declaration

Peter Kjellerstedt peter.kjellerstedt at axis.com
Sun Aug 1 08:35:46 UTC 2010


> -----Original Message-----
> From: uclibc-bounces at uclibc.org
> [mailto:uclibc-bounces at uclibc.org] On Behalf Of Khem Raj
> Sent: den 1 augusti 2010 10:11
> To: Peter Kjellerstedt
> Cc: uclibc at uclibc.org
> Subject: Re: [patch] avoid c99 declaration
>
> On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Peter Kjellerstedt
> <peter.kjellerstedt at axis.com> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: uclibc-bounces at uclibc.org
> >> [mailto:uclibc-bounces at uclibc.org] On Behalf Of Mike Frysinger
> >> Sent: den 1 augusti 2010 04:08
> >> To: uclibc at uclibc.org
> >> Subject: Re: [patch] avoid c99 declaration
> >>
> >> On Saturday, July 31, 2010 16:22:35 Khem Raj wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
> >> > > On 7/28/2010 7:51 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> > >> On Monday, June 21, 2010 06:39:12 Gianluigi Tiesi wrote:
> >> > >>> While compiling uClibc inside openwrt build system I
> >> > >>> have somehow the compiler without -std=c99 flash (since
> >> > >>> adding id causes me some troubles)
> >> > >>
> >> > >> why dont we fix uClibc to use c99 then ?  if your toolchain
> >> > >> is new enough to support TLS as NPTL requires, then it's
> >> > >> new enough to support c99 features. we shouldnt go throwing
> >> > >> frivolous patches at the NPTL code when we're merely
> >> > >> importing it from glibc.  realistically, we dont have the
> >> > >> man power to maintain a fork which means we need to be
> >> > >> sticking as lose to glibc as possible here.
> >> > >
> >> > > I definitely agree with Mike. Even if changes are dummy,
> >> > > merging effort with updated version of NPTL/glibc could be
> >> > > too huge.
> >> >
> >> > yes I agree. I proposed to make C99 a requirement for uclibc.
> >>
> >> i'm not necessarily set on all of uClibc, but certainly any part
> >> that utilizes TLS.  i guess we could enable -std=gnu99 in the
> >> build and see who (if any) complains.
> >>
> >> if no one has anything else, i'll revert the changes in
> >> question and add -std=gnu99.
> >> -mike
> >
> > You already have this in Rules.mak:
> >
> > CPU_CFLAGS-y += $(call check_gcc,-std=gnu99,)
> >
> > so C99 should already be a requirement (at least for gcc)...
>
> No. its only turned on if gcc supports it. what I proposed was to
> have it turned on always.

And if the compiler does not support it, how do you propose to
turn it on? I thought gcc is not the only compiler used to compile
uClibc, but I may be wrong as I never used anything other than
gcc myself.

//Peter


More information about the uClibc mailing list