Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 4:59 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:

> On 2018-08-21 17:58:00 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 08/21/2018 04:49 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On 2018-08-21 11:09:15 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > > On 08/21/2018 11:06 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > XP at least is essentially a dead platform for us. My animals are
> not
> > > > > able to build anything after release 10.
> > > > I wouldn't think XP should even be on our list anymore. Microsoft
> hasn't
> > > > supported it in 4 years.
> > > XP isn't the only thing relevant here, vista and 2008 R1 are in the
> same
> > > class.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I do have a machine in my laptop graveyard with Vista. The only WS2008
> > instace I have available is R2 and AWS doesn't seem to have any AMIs for
> R1.
> >
> > Honestly, I don't think these matter terribly much. Anyone building now
> is
> > not likely to be targeting them.
>
> I agree, I think we should just decree that the minimum is MSVC 2013 and
> that people building 12 need to deal with that. I would personally
> *additionally* would say that we officially don't support *running* (not
> compiling) on XP, 2003, 2008R1 and Vista (all unsupported by MS) - but
> that's a somewhat orthogonal decision.
>
> We build windows binaries (>=9.3) on Windows 7 and Windows Server 2012 R2.
For 9.3, the Visual Studio version is 2010 and for 9.4 and v10, we use
2013. For v11, we use 2017.

> Greetings,
>
> Andres Freund
>

--
Sandeep Thakkar