Re: [PATCH] Pacify Oracle Studio c99

[Dennis Clarke]

On 8/27/19 4:23 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Paul Smith wrote:
> > I saw this warning on Windows as well.  I seem to recall that this was
> > done on purpose to pack data structures more tightly, which can save a
> > lot of memory on large build systems.
> >
> > However looking at it now I don't think it will actually end up saving
> > any space.
>
> I don't either. In a struct, 'unsigned int foo : 8;' should behave like 
> 'unsigned short foo : 8;', and similarly if you change 'short' to 
> 'char', or change '8' to '1'. At least, that should be true for typical 
> compilers (the C standard doesn't say exactly what should happen).

Could this be a good time to point to stdint.h and uintX_t for X bits?
May clarify matters.  However that leads to another funny question.
I have been running configure over and over on various machines with c99
type CFLAGS and also without them. One thing I do see is configure seems
to be happy about "checking for good max_align_t" where we get a no for
C99 and a yes if I specify no language standard at all. Well max_align_t
is a C11 type of concept and seems to have no bearing on the build or
tests running regardless.

So I have to ask is GNU Make shooting for C89 or C99 type dialect ?


Dennis