From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id zjLIFgcNkGDwQwAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 03 May 2021 10:47:35 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 4FFE01F11C; Mon, 3 May 2021 10:47:35 -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 50B7B1E01F for ; Mon, 3 May 2021 10:47:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D239A395100D; Mon, 3 May 2021 14:47:30 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D239A395100D DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1620053250; bh=vfOHWVQI9wtazQ2kTa82XTds/8QjveQxJPHlygM2x7E=; h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=TBjYnHtNhSQUqkPUiMe5QHoKRo6fNhU5P35UCwMvVIo4usFS7+LnrYy1/V74iIQvC W//YmThUppcgSJUtdkQQeAcxvMQU2OO1GZR+5mIoYDV69hH/tbfJ9TOf6MplQI6N71 lKCQ0k0V5QtQLvfxTYJ+LFE4/agqmJkizwcjFATc= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6C003950413; Mon, 3 May 2021 14:47:28 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org C6C003950413 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 143ElFdw008301 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 3 May 2021 10:47:20 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 143ElFdw008301 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AC4A31E01F; Mon, 3 May 2021 10:47:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: RFC: Changing AC_PROG_CC to AC_PROG_CC_C99 in top level configure To: Alan Modra , Jeff Law References: <8c1b0ed9-e6f3-9c22-45c5-c2680a2a4830@polymtl.ca> <15701c5f-5653-f0e4-990a-43094d18a702@gmail.com> <20210503062825.GG22624@bubble.grove.modra.org> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 May 2021 10:47:15 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210503062825.GG22624@bubble.grove.modra.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Mon, 3 May 2021 14:47:16 +0000 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: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Simon Marchi Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Nick Clifton , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Binutils Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" > Yes, I prefer the configure fix too. If we state we require C99 in > binutils then we ought to be able to use C99.. > > Nick, does the configure.ac change also need to go in all subdirs, to > support people running make in say ld/ rather than running make in the > top build dir? For GDB, it's not supported to run gdb/configure directly, you need to use the top-level configure. Is it supported from some of the other projects in the repo? I just tried with ld, it doesn't work since it depends on bfd also being built. I tried with just bfd, it doesn't work (with the default configure options at least) because it requires zlib being built. So if all projects need to go through the top-level configure script anyway, and C99 is a baseline for all projects, then having the check only in the top-level makes sense to me. Projects that have more specific requirements can have their own checks. For example, sim/ requires C11 now. Unless the C99 check at top-level somehow does not play well with the C11 check in sim/? Like if that would cause CC to be set to "gcc -std=gnu99 -std=gnu11" or something like that. Simon