From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c |
Date: | 2018-08-16 08:41:34 |
Message-ID: | 20180816084134.sqggeatubeufpc2r@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
Hi,
On 2018-08-15 18:31:10 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > 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.
I've pushed a minimal version adding the C99 test. If we were to
actually go for this permanently, we'd likely want to clean up a bunch
of other tests (say removing PGAC_C_VA_ARGS), but I don't see much point
in doing that while just gathering evidence (to the contrary, it seems
like it'd just muddy the water a bit).
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tatsuro Yamada | 2018-08-16 09:04:00 | Fix help option of contrib/oid2name |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-08-16 08:31:07 | Re: remove ancient pre-dlopen dynloader code |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-08-16 11:18:59 | Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c |
Previous Message | Nico Williams | 2018-08-16 02:57:46 | Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c |