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

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 2018-08-22 17:17:27 +0530, Sandeep Thakkar wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> Sndeep: Thanks for the information. Did you ever encounter problems (at
> build or during runtime) with using those binaries on older platforms?
>
> IIRC when the binaries were built with VC++ 2013 on 9.4, we had problems
running them on XP and hence we had used "/p:PlatformToolset=v120_xp"
option to msbuild during build time. From v10, we stopped using that
toolset and instead used the default one i.e v120

> Everyone: Given the fact that all the people building windows packages
> currently use a new enough stack by a fair margin, I think we should
> conclude that there's no obstacle on the windows side of things.
>
>
> If we agree on that, I'm going to propose a patch that includes:
> - relevant cleanups to configure
> - adapts sources.sgml to refer to C99 instead of C89
> - add some trivial conversions to for(int i;;) and struct initializers,
> so the relevant old animals fail
> - adds a configure check to enable errors with vla usage (-Werror=vla)
>
> Questions:
>
> - do we want to make declarations at arbitrary points errors? It's
> already a warning currently.
> - other new restrictions that we want to introduce at the same time?
>
> Greetings,
>
> Andres Freund
>

--
Sandeep Thakkar