Code::Blocks Forums

User forums => Help => Topic started by: AZ on October 05, 2012, 05:25:44 pm

Title: question - C99
Post by: AZ on October 05, 2012, 05:25:44 pm

hello,
 why there is no option to select C99 standard from the list of predefined options?
// just curious

AZ
.

Title: Re: question - C99
Post by: stahta01 on October 05, 2012, 05:28:12 pm

Code::Blocks Version?
Compiler name and Version?

You can always place missing option in the extra or other settings area for Linker or Compiler.

I do not see it in the Nightly Build SVN 8345.
Saw several C++ options like it.
Saw C90 related option.

Tim S.

Title: Re: question - C99
Post by: AZ on October 05, 2012, 05:30:39 pm

Quote from: stahta01 on October 05, 2012, 05:28:12 pm

Code::Blocks Version?
Compiler name and Version?

You can always place missing option in the extra settings area for Linker or Compiler

Tim S.

CB - svn 8403
CC- gcc version 4.4.6 20120305 (Red Hat 4.4.6-4) (GCC)
>..You can always place missing option in the extra settings area for Linker or Compiler
yeap, that's what i did. I'm just curios why this option is not in the selection. I would think it's more or less standard...

Title: Re: question - C99
Post by: stahta01 on October 05, 2012, 05:33:15 pm

Quote from: AZ on October 05, 2012, 05:30:39 pm

Quote from: stahta01 on October 05, 2012, 05:28:12 pm

Code::Blocks Version?
Compiler name and Version?

You can always place missing option in the extra settings area for Linker or Compiler

Tim S.

CB - svn 8403
CC- gcc version 4.4.6 20120305 (Red Hat 4.4.6-4) (GCC)
>..You can always place missing option in the extra settings area for Linker or Compiler
yeap, that's what i did. I'm just curios why this option is not in the selection. I would think it's more or less standard...

If you build from SVN, I suggest submitting an patch to add it.
If not, I suggest submitting a feature request to add it.

Look at Wikipage on where to submit feature requests.

Edit: They made be holding off on adding it because of Compiler redesign reasons.
Or, it might be because most of the developers use C++ instead of C.

Tim S.

Title: Re: question - C99
Post by: AZ on October 05, 2012, 05:40:16 pm

ok. thank you

Title: Re: question - C99
Post by: MortenMacFly on October 06, 2012, 07:13:52 am

Quote from: AZ on October 05, 2012, 05:40:16 pm

ok. thank you

Using the compiler branch (which will be merged into trunk later) you can define any option you like you self. We are planning a nightly of this branch any time soon (actually it should have been out already). So wait a little and grab that one.

Title: Re: question - C99
Post by: Alatar on September 01, 2014, 11:09:47 am

UP!

Please, add -std=c99 and -std=gnu99 to default xml file?

Title: Re: question - C99
Post by: MortenMacFly on September 01, 2014, 01:00:02 pm

Quote from: Alatar on September 01, 2014, 11:09:47 am

Please, add -std=c99 and -std=gnu99 to default xml file?

It is there for me...?!

Title: Re: question - C99
Post by: Alatar on September 01, 2014, 02:48:39 pm

I`m think for any of C::B developer.
Generally I don`t need this options but I look at commit history today and saw r9874. I don`t understand why there is no C99-related options here, so I decide to ask you to add them.

Title: Re: question - C99
Post by: stahta01 on September 01, 2014, 04:42:34 pm

Quote from: Alatar on September 01, 2014, 02:48:39 pm

I`m think for any of C::B developer.
Generally I don`t need this options but I look at commit history today and saw r9874. I don`t understand why there is no C99-related options here, so I decide to ask you to add them.

Is there a real reason you are keeping the version and distro of the Code::Blocks you are using secret?
Edit: And, the CB name Compiler you are using.

Edit2: If the information needed to duplicate the problem is NOT given; you will likely be ignored by the CB Devs.

Tim S.