Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 02:12:11AM +0100, Ulrich Habel wrote:
>> Jeremy wanted me to post about this in here - is the c99 switch needed
>> on any platform or is 'c' just sufficient. This obsoletes the patch and
>> converts the USE_LANGUAGES+= to 'c c++'
> 
> GCC 2.95 has a number of C99 extensions or to be more precise some of
> what later got known as C99 extensions. For that very reason this is
> incorrect. To be frank, I don't like worrying about GCC 2.95 anymore. It
> doesn't mean someone might not fix the c99 option passing but:
> (a) This patch is wrong. The problem is about the compiler and not the
> OS.
> (b) I don't even think that patching gcc.mk is correct either, since GCC
> 2.95 does not support all C99 features. Maybe we should just require
> 3.0+ in that case.

gcc.mk already contains:

# gcc2 doesn't support c99
.if !empty(USE_LANGUAGES:Mc99)
GCC_REQD+=      3.0
.endif

Perhaps it would be worth figuring out why therefore the presence of c99
in USE_LANGUAGES isn't already automatically pulling in gcc 3.x.

-- 
Gillette - the best a man can forget