Building OSLib under Linux

[Tony van der Hoff]

"David J. Ruck" <druck at druck.org.uk> wrote in message
<gemini.hvdwm1002v240013c.druck at druck.org.uk>

> Tony van der Hoff <tony at mk-net.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > Philip Ludlam <philip at philipnet.com> wrote in message
> > <b47e68974c.philip at philipnet.com>
> > > You might have to. It doesn't know about C99
> > >   cc1: unknown C standard `C99'
> > 
> > OK, I see. It wouldn't be too hard to fix this sort of thing, except
> > that I dont't really feel kike installing gcc 2.9, for fear of breaking
> > my 3.2 installation, which I'm using quite extensively for other
> > projects. If you would care to send me a patch list, I'd be quite happy
> > to adopt it.
> > 
> > On the other hand, what do others think? Is it worth maintaining 2.9
> > compatibility, simce I'm almost bound to unwittingly break it again in
> > the future?
> 
> Is C99 only an issue building under GCC on non-RISC OS? If it affects the
> RISC OS build, there might be problems for people using the 26bit
> compilers / SCL. Although I suspect not many people with old development
> environments will bother rebuilding OSLib.
> 
I think the only C99 problem area is in the portable OSLib (parts of which
will certainly be familiar to you :-), which is used to build the tools
under Linux. AFAIK, everything else is OK from the C point of view.

However, we abandoned supporting the older tools a year or so ago (after a
staw poll here) in order to use the better facilities provided by the latest
AMU. So, whilst C99 is not a problem, it won't be easy to build OSLib with
the older tools.

Cheers, Tony
-- 
Tony van der Hoff
Buckinghamshire England