| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, sandeep(dot)thakkar(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c) |
| Date: | 2018-08-21 17:54:29 |
| Message-ID: | 20180821175429.qgt5qjmmukfhsy54@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
Hi,
On 2018-08-21 13:46:10 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2018-08-21 13:29:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> We've got a buildfarm handy that could answer the question.
> >> Let's just stick a test function in there for a day and see
> >> which animals fail.
>
> > I think we pretty much know the answer already, anything before 2013
> > will fail.
>
> Do we know that for sure? I thought it was theoretical.
Pretty much. I'm on mobile data so I don't want to search too much, but
I've previously looked it up, and designated initializer support was
introduced in 2013. See e.g. the graph in
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/somasegar/2013/06/28/c-conformance-roadmap/
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2018-08-21 17:55:57 | Re: [HACKERS] proposal: schema variables |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-08-21 17:46:10 | Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chapman Flack | 2018-08-21 18:03:26 | Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-08-21 17:46:10 | Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c) |