On 2014-09-24 17:39:19 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes:
> > > On 9/24/14 9:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Agreed, but what about non-GCC compilers?
> > > Stick AC_PROG_CC_C99 into configure.in.
> > I think that's a bad idea, unless you mean to do it only on Solaris.
> > If we do that unconditionally, we will pretty much stop getting any
> > warnings about C99-isms on modern platforms. I am not aware that
> > there has been any agreement to move our portability goalposts up
> > to C99.
> AFAIK we cannot move all the way to C99, because MSVC doesn't support
FWIW, msvc has supported a good part of C99 for long while. There's bits
and pieces it doesn't, but it's not things I think we're likely to
adopt. The most commonly complained about one is C99 variable
declarations. I can't see PG adopting that tomorrow.
>From VS 2013 onwards they're trying hard to be C99 and C11 compatible.
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: