On Monday, June 25, 2012 05:57:51 PM Tom Lane wrote: > 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 fail to see how gcc is the relevant point here given that there is equivalent definitions available from multiple compiler vendors. Also, 'static inline' *is* C99 conforming as far as I can see? The problem with it is that some compilers may warn if the function isn't used in the same translation unit. Thats doesn't make not using a function non standard- conforming though. > > 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. No, it won't improve that. But neither will the contrary. Greetings, Andres -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
