Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 01:12:57 +0300 From: "Alexander Churanov" <alexanderchuranov@gmail.com> To: "Christoph Mallon" <christoph.mallon@gmx.de> Cc: Andrew Reilly <andrew-freebsd@areilly.bpc-users.org>, Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr> Subject: Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standard compiler? Message-ID: <3cb459ed0901091412o5861ec59web9b48d264ca053b@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <49675F04.20006@gmx.de> References: <49668763.8020705@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20090108233311.GA69883@keltia.freenix.fr> <20090109031147.GB44317@duncan.reilly.home> <49672189.5060109@gmx.de> <20090109110508.GA12123@freebsd.org> <496751D1.20605@gmx.de> <20090109134725.GA38233@freebsd.org> <49675F04.20006@gmx.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Folks, The '-std=c99'' only instructs GCC to allow the whole of C99. This is clearly not enough, because this mode allows too many GCC extensions. If you compile your code in "default' mode or just specify '-std=c99', then it's very likely that you will eventually get stuck to GCC. Using this approach you are reducing chances to switch to another C99 compiler. Though I am not aware of any other open source compiler supporting C99, I beleive that there is great need for it. This discussion indicates that there is real necessity for BSD-licensed C99 compiler. That's why I am always propagandizing the following: "-Wall -Werror -std=c99 -pedantic". To my mind, this helps to prepear your code for eventual switching to another standard-compliant compiler. Alexander
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3cb459ed0901091412o5861ec59web9b48d264ca053b>