[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Request to revert the C version change
From: |
Todd C. Miller |
Subject: |
Re: Request to revert the C version change |
Date: |
Wed, 16 Dec 2020 14:55:01 -0700 |
On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 14:48:19 -0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2020, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps you are hitting this bug that breaks C99 flag detection?
> > https://savannah.gnu.org/support/?110396
>
> What are the impacts of that?
The impact is that the configure script will incorrectly decide
that no compiler flag is needed to support C99 features. It should
only be a problem on older compilers that don't support C99 by
default. In my case, I noticed it with gcc version 4.2.1 (gccfss).
> I just opened this new one. Is it related?
>
> sr #110403: autoconf-2.70 AC_TYPE_INTMAX_T test failure under OmniOS
>
> https://savannah.gnu.org/support/index.php?110403
That looks to be a different issue. The version of gcc you are
using supports C11 features without requiring any flags.
> This test used to work fine on the same system, which has not been
> changed throughout the release cycle. I must admit that I did not
> test the last release candidate before formal release, but I did test
> the other ones.
I'm not sure why that test is failing when the unsigned version
does not. From the log it certainly appears that intmax_t is
discovered correctly.
I wonder if this is related:
./config.status: line 556: syntax error at line 562: `<<' unmatched
- todd