Re: RFC: Changing AC_PROG_CC to AC_PROG_CC_C99 in top level configure

[Iain Sandoe <idsandoe@googlemail.com>]

Alan Modra via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:

> On 2021-05-04 8:42 a.m., Nick Clifton wrote:
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> On 4/30/21 7:36 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
>>> I think this fix is obvious enough, I encourage you to push it,
>>
>> OK - I have pushed the patch to the mainline branches of both
>> the gcc and binutils-gdb repositories.
>
> Thanks Nick!  Incidentally, I checked the AC_PROG_CC_C99 change on
> both binutils and gcc mainline using gcc-4.9.
>
> To build gcc on x86_64 I found the following patch necessary to avoid
> lots of
> error: uninitialized const member ‘stringop_algs::stringop_strategy::max’
> error: uninitialized const member ‘stringop_algs::stringop_strategy::alg’
> when compiling config/i386/i386-options.c.  These can't be cured by
> configuring with --disable-stage1-checking.
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.h b/gcc/config/i386/i386.h
> index 97d6f3863cb..cc3b1b6d666 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.h
> +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.h
> @@ -73,8 +73,8 @@ struct stringop_algs
> {
>   const enum stringop_alg unknown_size;
>   const struct stringop_strategy {
> -    const int max;
> -    const enum stringop_alg alg;
> +    int max;
> +    enum stringop_alg alg;
>     int noalign;
>   } size [MAX_STRINGOP_ALGS];
> };

does this relate to / fix PR 100246 (which seems to fire for some GCC  
versions as well
as older clang)?

Iain