On 2015-01-15 17:59:40 +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-01-15 11:56:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > > On 2015-01-15 10:57:10 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > >> While I'll not cry too hard when we decide to break C89 compatibility, > > >> I don't want it to happen accidentally; so having a pretty old-school > > >> compiler in the farm seems important to me. > > > > > I'd worked on setting up a modern gcc (or was it clang?) with the > > > appropriate flags to warn about !C89 stuff some time back, but failed > > > because of configure bugs. > > > > My recollection is that there isn't any reasonable way to get gcc to > > warn about C89 violations as such. -ansi -pedantic is not very fit > > for the purpose. > > It was clang, which has -Wc99-extensions/-Wc11-extensions.
gcc-5 now has: * A new command-line option -Wc90-c99-compat has been added to warn about features not present in ISO C90, but present in ISO C99. * A new command-line option -Wc99-c11-compat has been added to warn about features not present in ISO C99, but present in ISO C11. Greetings, Andres Freund -- 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
