| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: static assertions in C++ |
| Date: | 2017-08-31 23:28:40 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobTN4hv2hgjt5CK0ntdE_gsbDA6OTRbLGbeLxp=OB8EqA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Meh. We support ancient versions of C for backwards compatibility
> reasons, but considering that compiling backend code with C++ isn't
> officially supported at all, I'm not sure we need to cater to ancient
> C++ compilers. We could quibble about the value of "ancient" of
> course --- Peter, do you have an idea when this construct became
> widely supported?
>
> I do think it might be a better idea to put a #error there instead
> of silently disabling static assertions. Then at least we could
> hope to get complaints if anyone *is* trying to use ancient C++,
> and thereby gauge whether it's worth working any harder for this.
I guess my question was whether we couldn't just use the same
workaround we use for old C compilers.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tanay Varma | 2017-09-01 01:06:13 | Visual Studio 2017 Build Support |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-08-31 22:37:09 | Re: static assertions in C++ |