On 06/24/2013 09:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
Right. I don't think there are any C features we want to avoid; are
there any?
We're avoiding C99-and-later features that are not in C89, such as //
for comments, as well as more useful things. It might be time to
reconsider whe
On 06/25/2013 01:36 PM, james wrote:
> On 25/06/2013 05:16, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It might be time to reconsider whether we should move the baseline
>> portability requirement up to C99.
>
> My understanding was that you picked up a lot of users when the Win32
> port became useful. While you can bui
On 25/06/2013 05:16, Tom Lane wrote:
It might be time to reconsider whether we should move the baseline
portability requirement up to C99.
My understanding was that you picked up a lot of users when the Win32
port became useful. While you can build with msys, I would think that
leaving Micro
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Right. I don't think there are any C features we want to avoid; are
> there any?
We're avoiding C99-and-later features that are not in C89, such as //
for comments, as well as more useful things. It might be time to
reconsider whether we should move the baseline portabil
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:32:42AM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > Anything supported by C99 and not other versions I would say. However,
> > my point is if done correctly we would state which features ahead of
> > time we are willing to use and make them part of the developer faq?
>
> If C++ is se
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 06:38:48PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> On 06/24/2013 05:37 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> >On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 09:21:26PM -0300, Claudio Freire wrote:
> >>On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Joshua D. Drake
> >>wrote:
>
> I think the big question is whethe
On 06/25/2013 09:38 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> On 06/24/2013 05:37 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 09:21:26PM -0300, Claudio Freire wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Joshua D. Drake
>>> wrote:
>
> I think the big question is whether you can _control_ w
On 06/24/2013 05:37 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 09:21:26PM -0300, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I think the big question is whether you can _control_ what C++ features
are used, or whether you are perpetually instructing u
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 09:21:26PM -0300, Claudio Freire wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Joshua D. Drake
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I think the big question is whether you can _control_ what C++ features
> >> are used, or whether you are perpetually instructing users what C++
> >> features not
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>
>> I think the big question is whether you can _control_ what C++ features
>> are used, or whether you are perpetually instructing users what C++
>> features not to use.
>
>
> How is that different than us having to do the same with C?
P
On 06/24/2013 04:59 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:45:48PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
I see value in making the codebase compileable with g++... and down the
track I can see being able to use basic class features as quite useful
given Pg's fairly OO internal design. Inline
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:45:48PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> I see value in making the codebase compileable with g++... and down the
> track I can see being able to use basic class features as quite useful
> given Pg's fairly OO internal design. Inline template functions instead
> of macros woul
On 06/16/2013 03:19 AM, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> I have read Peter Eisentraut blog entry about "Moving to C++", I full agree
> with him about what he wrote.
>
> Is there any interest or work in progress in making the entire Postgresql
> code base compilable by a C++ compiler?
Well, from Peter at le
It would be great. I'm working at the moment on porting integer operations
to unsigned types, and the code is essentially a small number of functions,
repeated for every combination of integer types.
In C++ it could be simply one single set of template functions. Less code;
less bugs.
I have read Peter Eisentraut blog entry about "Moving to C++", I full agree
with him about what he wrote.
Is there any interest or work in progress in making the entire Postgresql
code
base compilable by a C++ compiler?
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
--
cpp-today.blogspot.com
15 matches
Mail list logo
