On 2015-07-01 19:05:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > Since, buildfarm/quiet inline test issues aside, pademelon is the only > > animal not supporting inlines and varargs, I think we should just go > > ahead and start to use both. > > I'm good with using inlines, since as I pointed out upthread, that won't > actually break anything. I'm much less convinced that varargs macros > represent a winning tradeoff. Using those *will* irredeemably break > pre-C99 compilers, and AFAICS we do not have an urgent need for them.
Well, I'll happily take that. > (BTW, where are you drawing the conclusion that all these compilers > support varargs? I do not see a configure test for it.) There is, although not in all branches: PGAC_C_VA_ARGS. We optionally use vararg macros today, for elog (b853eb9), so I assume it works ;) Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers