From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id 6L+wFTEdh2BsbgAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 16:06:09 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 56A191F11C; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 16:06:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A70641E01F for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 16:06:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61EC5389365A; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 20:06:04 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 61EC5389365A DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1619467564; bh=w2ooiXO7m2UxRQHEOaGwFMpJjnucDI/UpdA6KDKuvSY=; h=Date:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=A9UznBSsT6MMNKqj54K1y5mS7RdOovyYzWb5t1YGN+Tp68kbPwCcfaaamRGkRHxwJ WzPHT8mBTneC6JzxcuomwrS44D8avNOCFF7jmOlwQXBs+TvzHSAm2j8mKeFqciugO+ URJNKnc5YN4/H7FYU9qFkSSbxZj3x3P/LoKqHIqc= Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1089384A029; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 20:05:57 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org D1089384A029 Received: from vapier (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78AB4341315; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 20:05:55 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 16:05:53 -0400 To: Joseph Myers Subject: Re: RFC: Changing AC_PROG_CC to AC_PROG_CC_C99 in top level configure Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Joseph Myers , Nick Clifton , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Binutils , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Mike Frysinger via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Mike Frysinger Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Nick Clifton , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Binutils Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 26 Apr 2021 19:32, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Mon, 26 Apr 2021, Nick Clifton via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Given that gcc, gdb and now binutils are all now requiring C99 as a > > minimum version of C, are there any objections to updating > > configure.ac to reflect this ? > > This isn't an objection, since upgrading auto* for the toolchain can be > complicated, but note that AC_PROG_CC_C99 is obsolete in Autoconf 2.70 and > instead AC_PROG_CC enables C11 mode if supported. (So moving to the > latest Autoconf and Automake releases would supersede this change.) considering how long it took before we adopted 2.69, seems unlikely we can upgrade to 2.70. plus, i think there was a flurry of regression fixes for 2.70, and ideally we'd get a 2.71 ? as long as we have 2.69, we should move to AC_PROG_CC_C99 in all projects. -mike