Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 14:32:36 +0100 From: des@ofug.org (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: arch@freebsd.org Cc: Maxime Henrion <mux@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: WARNS=6 changes Message-ID: <xzpof4bcu8b.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: <20030316062315.GA75492@dragon.nuxi.com> ("David O'Brien"'s message of "Sat, 15 Mar 2003 22:23:15 -0800") References: <20030313192045.GG3819@elvis.mu.org> <20030316062315.GA75492@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> writes: > I am all for this change of making our C standard level C99. > Do you think we should do this for lower WARNS than 6? As far as > warnings go, -ansi (aka, -std=c89) is responsable for all the 'long long' > warnings and that is why it was done at WARNS==6. Since that will go > away, maybe we should turn on -std= at a lower WARNS. Hmm, I think it should be a separate knob. We can merge it into WARNS later, but for now, we should just remove -ansi / -pedantic from WARNS, and add a CSTD knob which can be either c89 or c99. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpof4bcu8b.fsf>