Re: [Nasm-devel] vsnprintf and snprintf

[Ed B. <be...@mi...>]

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Ed Beroset wrote:
> 
>>
>> Doesn't this already cover the earlier gccs?
>>
>> if test "$GCC" = "yes"; then
>>   GCCFLAGS="-Wall -std=c99 -pedantic"
>> else
>>   GCCFLAGS=
>> fi
>> AC_SUBST(GCCFLAGS)
>>
> 
> No, it doesn't, unfortunately.  I do have an autoconf macro which is 
> "add option X if it's supported", mostly for gcc; we could use that, 
> though.
> 
> However, I'm reluctant to do so, partly because although these options 
> are useful for the maintainer, they're a pain in the hands of an 
> end-user with a different compiler version.

Given that, I'd probably advocate just dropping -std=c99 completely as 
you suggested.  I hope you don't mind me posting this to the list -- it 
seemed like you might have intended it to go there.

Ed