From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Tue Feb 2 17:16:15 2010 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at pp.htv.fi From: Eero Tamminen Organization: Koti To: mint@lists.fishpool.fi Subject: Re: [MiNT] gcc (was: mono) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 00:13:51 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <201002022339.55647.oak@helsinkinet.fi> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201002030013.51107.oak@helsinkinet.fi> X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: oak@helsinkinet.fi Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: Hi, On Tuesday 02 February 2010, Helmut Karlowski wrote: > > Gets gcc-4 specific how? > > > > Or did you mean specific to the C-library used with gcc? > > Language-wise. Ok, you mean c99 support. :-) > > Most used gcc extensions have ended in c99 standard and Henk > > is adding c99 support to AHCC... > > That's nice. I compiled the current kernel with gcc 2.95 and got > compiler-errors on some statements that where new to me. 2.95 is really ancient. > For example: > > { > union{ char *s, long l] u; u.s = x; > long z; > > ... > } > > That's not C as I know it. You mean declaring a variable ("z") somewhere else than at the start of the code block? I don't like that either... > I thought gcc 2.95 is C99. Gcc 2.95 had quite limited support for C99, see: http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html C99 is quite different from C. While e.g. C++ is compatible with c89, it's not really compatible with c99 (don't now remember the details though). - Eero