Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2018-08-15 18:13:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Experimenting here says that even reasonably modern gcc's won't take
>> declarations-inside-for without "--std=c99" or such.

> I think autoconf's magic knows about most of that:
> — Macro: AC_PROG_CC_C99

Ah, of course. What about the MSVC build?

> I think we could get a start by adding that test to configure, without
> relying on it for now (i.e. keeping mylodon with -Wc99-extensions
> -Werror=c99-extensions alive). That'd tell us about which machines,
> besides presumably gaur, we'd need to either kick to the curb or change.

Sure, no objection to putting that in just to see how much of the
buildfarm can handle it. If the answer turns out to be "a lot",
we might have to reconsider, but gathering data seems like the
first thing to do.

regards, tom lane