| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: C11 / VS 2019 |
| Date: | 2025-06-04 06:22:14 |
| Message-ID: | b58d60d3-b9af-4443-9a40-02f62002c3fa@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 03.06.25 10:01, Yura Sokolov wrote:
> Will it mean we can implement atomics in term of C11 atomics?
> Aside for VS 2019, which has no support for. (But VS 2022 already has.)
> So instead of numerous variants we could just differ VS2019 vs plain C11.
I wrote:
"""
GCC details: The oldest gcc version that we currently need to support is
gcc 4.8, which comes with RHEL 7. As alluded to above, some C11
features came later with gcc 4.9, specifically generic, threads, and
atomics. I think it would still be useful to move forward without those
features.
"""
So there is additional homework to do there.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Japin Li | 2025-06-04 07:06:58 | pg_probackup build issue with PostgreSQL 18beta1 due to pg_detoast_datum_packed() |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2025-06-04 06:15:12 | Re: C11 / VS 2019 |