search for: c99

Today I tried two build R-devel_2011-02-06.tar.gz from sources on FreeBSD 9.0-CURRENT (amd64) with gcc-4.5.2 and I got the following messages when configuring: ./configure [..SNIP..] checking whether C99 double complex is supported... checking complex.h usability... yes checking complex.h presence... yes checking for complex.h... yes checking for double complex... yes checking whether cexp exists and is declared... no checking whether clog exists and is declared... no checking whether csqrt exists...

...penSSL 1.0.2. The port for OpenSSL 1.1.1 was just completed and this has enabled me to bring the port up to date. There are a few changes needed based on configure not handling some situations but mostly the key difference is that ROOT is 65535 not 0 on this platform. The compiler we have to use is c99 but can upgrade to c11 or higher in about 3 years when the Itanium platform is deprecated. The team I work on is called ITUGLIB and maintain many of the critical Open Source ports for the platform. Is this contribution desired? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching the assign...

Dear developeRs, As of icc 10, the -c99 option is deprecated, and generates a lot of warnings when compiling R or R packages. If you use CC="icc -std=c99" instead of just CC="icc", R's configure will not add the -c99 option, and the code seems to compile and run just fine. (Please don't hesitate to let me kn...

Hi all. I've recently uploaded a package (bnlearn) to CRAN. It builds fine on both Linux (32 and 64 bit) and Windows, but fails on MacOSX ix86 because of C90 vs C99 issues: http://www.r-project.org/nosvn/R.check/r-patched-macosx-ix86/bnlearn-00install.html Since I've no MacOSX machine at hand, I would like to ask you: why is C99 not the default for gcc on MacOSX ix86? Is it safe to force gcc to use C99 with either -std=c99 o -std=gnu99? Thanks in advan...

...tainting %b. An inliner would generate >> these special instructions for each of the arguments, and then all >> references to the arguments within the inlined body would be made >> through these copies. I think the goal should be to capture the most important information. The c99 definition of restrict has some nasty and complex implementation issues. It may not be reasonable or interesting to capture every corner case. A more interesting question is how to represent TBAA information in LLVM :). Here is a sketch of a concrete proposal to get us started: 1. Add a new...

...rse_config -I/usr/local/incl ude -fpic -I/home/tbarik/include -c CHMfactor.c -o CHMfactor.o In file included from CHMfactor.h:4, from CHMfactor.c:2: Mutils.h: In function 'inv_permutation': Mutils.h:270: error: 'for' loop initial declaration used outside C99 mode In file included from Mutils.h:374, from CHMfactor.h:4, from CHMfactor.c:2: t_sparseVector.c: In function 'dsparseVector_sub': t_sparseVector.c:139: error: 'for' loop initial declaration used outside C99 mode In file included from Mutils.h:377,...

...Yep, exactly. > What about an approach not unlike how debugging information is handled? That > is have an llvm intrinsic that encodes the known alias free range for a > pointer. That is another great possibility. One issue is that I haven't had time to study the implications of C99 restrict, so I don't feel qualified to propose a concrete solution yet. Ideally, the mechanism added to LLVM would be able to handle restrict as well as fortran argument parameters (even if the fortran functions are inlined!), etc. IOW, we don't want to have an feature that just imple...

...c/packages/BUILD/Mesa/src/mesa/drivers/dri/nouveau' gcc -c -I. -I../../../../../src/mesa/drivers/dri/common -Iserver -I../../../../../include -I../../../../../src/mesa -I../../../../../src/egl/main -I../../../../../src/egl/drivers/dri -I/usr/include/drm -g -O2 -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -std=c99 -ffast-math -fvisibility=hidden -fno-strict-aliasing -fPIC -DUSE_X86_ASM -DUSE_MMX_ASM -DUSE_3DNOW_ASM -DUSE_SSE_ASM -D_GNU_SOURCE -DPTHREADS -DHAVE_POSIX_MEMALIGN -DUSE_EXTERNAL_DXTN_LIB=1 -DIN_DRI_DRIVER -DGLX_DIRECT_RENDERING -DGLX_INDIRECT_RENDERING -DHAVE_ALIAS -DHAVE_XEXTPROTO_71 -I/usr/inc...

Hi, I would like to know if the command llc -march=c hello.bc generates a c99 file or not. Is the cbackend target meant to be c99 or normal C. -- Kalyan Ponnala phone: 8163772059 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100219/e67c7a73/attachment.html>

A widely used platform doesn't bother to have C99 integer types, so this allows building with it. Reported by sirlemonhead on IRC. Index: src/tools/oggz_tools.c =================================================================== --- src/tools/oggz_tools.c (revision 3827) +++ src/tools/oggz_tools.c (working copy) @@ -450,7 +450,7 @@...

On Mar 25, 2007, at 2:18 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Sat, 24 Mar 2007, Christopher Lamb wrote: >> Has there been any discussion of supporting the 'restrict' C99 >> keyword >> and C++ extension to boost alias analysis? My impression is that this >> would require modification of the LLVM IR. I couldn't find any >> discussion hits using the usual suspects for searches... > > So far, there hasn't been a discussion. IMO,...

Hi All, I tried to build dovecot-1.1.rc9 on a HP-UX machine, but failed to configure with the following message: configure: error: You don't appear to have C99 compatible vsnprintf() call The environment is like the following: - command: ./configure - uname: HP-UX B.11.23 U ia64 - aCC version: HP aC++/ANSI C B3910B A.05.55 [Dec 04 2003] Also, I tried to run `./configure CC=c99' and `./configure CC="/opt/aCC/bin/aCC -Ae" also, but the...

This problem actually came up with pdftex-1.40, which now uses the openbsd-compat code. I routinely build pdftex with c99 to reduce reliance on old gcc extensions, in the hope that things will be more consistent across linux and unix. I think the problem is that the way configure checks for strsep leaves things open for a #def'd version to conflict with the replacement version. I'm willing to accept the view...

> I believe that the right (ie ISO C standard recommended) way of doing > this is: > > printf("[%d] [duration %" PRId64 "] %s\n", C99 only, and ugly as hell (well, subjective, but I have trouble reading those). I can post an updated patch using this instead if preferred ?

Has there been any discussion of supporting the 'restrict' C99 keyword and C++ extension to boost alias analysis? My impression is that this would require modification of the LLVM IR. I couldn't find any discussion hits using the usual suspects for searches... -- Christopher Lamb christopher.lamb at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------...

> Dave Yeo wrote: >> Yes that makes sense. Requiring a C99 compliant compiler seems quite reasonable. > Well I'm actually going to be even more reasonable than that. The only bits of C99 that flac will really require is header file > with C99 standard width integers (int8_t, uint8_t, int16_t etc). Erik I would recommend including with the distri...

Full_Name: Michael Hoffman Version: 2.0.0-beta-20041001 OS: OSF1 V5.1 Submission from: (NULL) (193.62.199.8) Hello. Building R 2.0.0-beta-20041001 on OSF1 V5.1 failed because the default configure sets R_XTRA_CFLAGS to "-std1 -ieee_with_inexact." The bzip2 directory includes C99 code that requires -std1 to not be set in order to compile. This halts the overall build process.

...since I had no flags set for SHLIB_LDFLAGS, so just put it at -shared for lack of a brighter idea ... seems to work (with only a warming about SHLIB_CXXLDFLAGS, hence the comment). 5: make Now here I get 10 somewhat thousand messages (pun!) like this: icc: command line remark #10010: option '-c99' is deprecated and will be removed in a future release. See '-help deprecated' But it compiled, and make check seemed to have worked. My question are now: 1) is it possible to change -c99 to -std=c99 in order to skip the 10 thousand warning messages? 2) Did I setup my config.site rig...

...unlike how debugging information is >> handled? That >> is have an llvm intrinsic that encodes the known alias free range >> for a >> pointer. > > That is another great possibility. One issue is that I haven't had > time > to study the implications of C99 restrict, so I don't feel > qualified to > propose a concrete solution yet. Ideally, the mechanism added to LLVM > would be able to handle restrict as well as fortran argument > parameters > (even if the fortran functions are inlined!), etc. IOW, we don't > want to...

...led? That >>>> is have an llvm intrinsic that encodes the known alias free range >>>> for a >>>> pointer. >>> >>> That is another great possibility. One issue is that I haven't had >>> time >>> to study the implications of C99 restrict, so I don't feel >>> qualified to >>> propose a concrete solution yet. Ideally, the mechanism added to >>> LLVM >>> would be able to handle restrict as well as fortran argument >>> parameters >>> (even if the fortran functions ar...