Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On Monday, June 25, 2012 05:15:43 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> So you propose to define any compiler that strictly implements C99 as
>> not sensible and not one that will be able to compile Postgres?
> I propose to treat any compiler which has no way to get to equivalent
> behaviour as not sensible. Yes.
Well, my response is "no". I could see saying that we require (some) C99
features at this point, but not features that are in no standard, no
matter how popular gcc might be.
> I don't think there really are many of those
> around. As you pointed out there is only one compiler in the buildfarm with
> problems
This just means we don't have a wide enough collection of non-mainstream
machines in the buildfarm. Deciding to break any platform with a
non-gcc-equivalent compiler isn't going to improve that.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
