On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 12:25:17PM -0500, Jan Schaumann wrote:
> joerg@britannica.bec.de wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 11:53:24AM -0500, Jan Schaumann wrote:
> > > Unless, of course, we make the decision to say we _always_ want C99 and
> > > consider packages that don't do C99 as broken.  But we don't do that for
> > > gcc, do we?
> > 
> > Well, stdint.h is definitely part of the Single Unix Specification and
> > used a lot.  I expect a lot of other packages to be broken for the same
> > reason.
> 
> How about this:
> 
> I run a bulk-build with CFLAGS set to include "-c99", and we see what
> the breakage is.  If it's wildly more successfull than without, we'll
> add it for IRIX as a default.

Let's see what breaks first. Does adding -c99 turn on any *strict*
modus? E.g. does it just add the c99 stuff or turn off the C99
extensions?

Joerg