X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type;
	bh=kG4LYEuKSnHBeFGmRaED2GLtxm7N2S1viWaGiEhPo70=;
	b=GV2tA+rb43s61JqF6v5G0wuWcm4JN9V9aF20lC6viVOld0ZlIY/FID+nMRGZ7rTY80
	TewaPvevIlAWHNou5goZZa+66doBTvnMlPoQsRJm6mMEMcJ26xalkM4iKRIvhQ3AnWTZ
	vkR29JGvFIQ1Ux19+c2P9xTH7/oSN2OklE2pNVt6IEVPuiepB44ODyUp2Q5/osSW1ayT
	knm7409RTBQ02G/eAXGCn5hRJNohLI4my2HUGe2mgdVI5grU2NrdITCghXmtPz0fu/h/
	KNmqw46YIci1CY016LOPW1xuHi1AzWNJXeS89MuIfVBIF+nnw8XWhuqkaflO6aucI2v5
	kA4A==
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<504E3764.7090100@iki.fi>
References:	<504CD18B DOT 1060207 AT iki DOT fi>
	<CAA-ihx-HZWik70LhPd4d16wN4LifdO35_NkcPjziSzOfwRr9OQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<504E3764 DOT 7090100 AT iki DOT fi>
Date:	Mon, 10 Sep 2012 14:27:51 -0500
Message-ID:	<CAA-ihx-OGat5kU7YFhTuD=uEsoMRwOtpkP652M_-QyKnM8WZQA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: Invalid tests for __STDC_VERSION__ in DJGPP header files
From:	Rugxulo <rugxulo AT gmail DOT com>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

Hi,

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Andris Pavenis <andris DOT pavenis AT iki DOT fi> wrote:
> On 09/10/2012 12:19 AM, Rugxulo wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Andris Pavenis <andris DOT pavenis AT iki DOT fi>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> -_STDC_VERSION__ is not defined in many cases any recent GCC version. It
>>> is
>>> only seems to be defined in several cases depending on the command line
>>> parameter -std and for C language only
>>
>>> Some examples:
>>>
>>> [andris AT ap ~]$ i586-pc-msdosdjgpp-gcc -dD -E -std=c99 -x c /dev/null |
>>> grep
>>> STDC
>>
>> You forgot "-std=iso9899:199409 (aka, C94 or C95 or AMD1 or NA1),
>> which first added all that wchar crud.  :-P
>
> Well I initially took some examples only. Now I extracted allowed values
> from
> GCC development version sources and even built ancient gcc-2.95.3 for Linux
> ix86
> (no x86_64 support available for gcc-2.95.3). The result is that I did not
> find any combination when __STDC_VERSION__ is defined and and is less than
> 199901L

I think you meant "less than 199409L" here as your test results indeed
show lot of that (but nothing older).

> Test script (editing compiler list required) and results are in attachments.
> I did the tests under Linux

So yeah, 2.95.3 is unreliable re: __STDC_VERSION__, no surprise. GCC
doesn't even list it on its C99 compliance page, saying it was too
weak. I'm far from Linux savvy, but I think even the kernel
maintainers dropped 2.95.3 build support back in 2005 for the same
reasons!

I know stock 2.03p2 was (mostly?) compiled by 2.8.1 (and 2.04 via 3.2
or such), but I'd guess DJ wants to not rely on such ancient versions
anymore, at least for CVS stuff.

- Raw text -