Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > > Fix compile issues for C89 compilers. Use log() instead of log2(). > > GCC has a -C89 switch or something like that that either enforces or > warns about C89 compatibility. -std=c89 (for C, this is equivalent to -ansi). If you use that switch, you typically need to explicitly define feature macros (-D_POSIX_SOURCE, -D_XOPEN_SOURCE, etc), otherwise the standard C headers (<stdio.h> etc) will omit declarations which aren't part of the C standard.

There are also -std=g89 and -std=g99 IIRC, which permit use of GCC extensions.

>> GCC has a -C89 switch or something like that that either enforces or >> warns about C89 compatibility. > > -std=c89 (for C, this is equivalent to -ansi). If you use that switch, > you typically need to explicitly define feature macros (-D_POSIX_SOURCE, > -D_XOPEN_SOURCE, etc), otherwise the standard C headers (<stdio.h> etc) > will omit declarations which aren't part of the C standard. I compiled with -ansi successfully without changes. (After I fixed the error I had introduced.) I didn't look at any warnings though. I just tried with -std=c89 and it failed at line 1389 in lisp.h, which is DECLARE_INLINE_HEADER. It must turn off gcc extensions, wchi aren't standard anyway. :-) So we could use -ansi with gcc. Or would that be on linux? I'm not sure which condition would trigger it. I've added it to my personal configuration script.

>>>> Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org&gt; writes:

>>>> Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org&gt; writes: