Re: C++ compiler

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: C++ compiler
Date: 2013-06-25 04:16:03
Message-ID: 29207.1372133763@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Right. I don't think there are any C features we want to avoid; are
> there any?

We're avoiding C99-and-later features that are not in C89, such as //
for comments, as well as more useful things. It might be time to
reconsider whether we should move the baseline portability requirement
up to C99. I'm really not in favor of moving to C++ though, as the
portability-vs-usefulness tradeoffs seem pretty unattractive there.
(Still :-(. Bjorn should've frozen that language twenty years ago,
but he completely blew it as far as stability goes.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2013-06-25 04:20:13 Re: pg_filedump 9.3: checksums (and a few other fixes)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2013-06-25 03:56:50 Re: [9.4 CF 1] The Commitfest Slacker List