From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
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: | 2018-08-15 22:13:59 |
Message-ID: | 9877.1534371239@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2018-08-15 15:57:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'd always thought this was only in C++. This alone might be a sufficient
>> reason to drop C89 compiler support ...
> It's also IIRC reasonably widely supported from before C99. So, for the
> sake of designated initializers, for loop scoping, snprintf, let's do
> this in master?
Nitpick: snprintf is an independent concern: that's from the C library,
not from the compiler. To drive the point home, I could still test
master on "gaur" if I were to install a just-slightly-newer gcc on that
machine (its existing gcc installation isn't native either...); but
replacing its libc is a nonstarter.
Experimenting here says that even reasonably modern gcc's won't take
declarations-inside-for without "--std=c99" or such. No idea about
other compilers. So we'd have a little bit of work to do on
configuration before we could open the floodgates on this.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-08-15 22:18:21 | Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-08-15 22:06:05 | Re: Stored procedures and out parameters |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-08-15 22:18:21 | Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-08-15 21:52:17 | Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c |