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

On 08/24/2018 11:46 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-08-23 18:44:34 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Pushed the first two.
> Seems to have worked like expected.
>
>> I'll send the presumably affected buildfarm owners an email, asking
>> them whether they want to update.
> Did that.

I have installed VS2017 on bowerbird and a test is currently running.
It's got past the make phase so I assume everything is kosher.

However, we only support VS2017 down to 9.6 and Vs2015 down to 9.5.
Perhaps we should consider backpatching support for those down to 9.3.

If not, I will just restrict bowerbird to building 9.6 and up. That's
fine by me, we'll still have coverage from, say, currawong, but it's a
pity we'll only be able to support the older compilers on the old branches.

>
>
> Andrew, as expected my buildfarm animal mylodon, which uses compiler
> flags to enforce C89 compliance, failed due to this commit:
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_history.pl?nm=mylodon&br=HEAD
>
> I'd like to change it so it doesn't enforce C89 compliance across the
> board, but instead enforces the relevant standard. For that I'd need to
> change CFLAGS per-branch in the buildfarm. Is that possible already? Do
> I need two different config files?
>
>

I saw Tom's answer, and it will work as far as it goes. But maybe we
should look at doing that in configure instead of putting the onus on
all buildfarm owners? It already knows if it's using a GNU compiler, not
sure how ubiquitous the -ansi and -std=c99 flags are.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services