On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Piotr Stefaniak <postg...@piotr-stefaniak.me> wrote: > On 2016-08-16 18:33, Robert Haas wrote: >> It wouldn't be that much work to maintain, either: we'd >> just set up some buildfarm members that compiled using C++ and when >> they turned red, we'd go fix it. > > I think that there exist subtle differences between C and C++ that > without compile-time diagnostic could potentially lead to different > run-time behavior. As an artificial example: > > $ cat ./test.c > #include <stdio.h> > > int main(void) { > FILE *f = fopen("test.bin", "w"); > if (f == NULL) > return 1; > fwrite("1", sizeof '1', 1, f); > fclose(f); > return 0; > } > $ clang ./test.c -o test > $ ./test > $ hexdump test.bin > 0000000 0031 0000 > 0000004 > $ clang++ ./test.c -o test > clang-3.9: warning: treating 'c' input as 'c++' when in C++ mode, this > behavior is deprecated > $ ./test > $ hexdump test.bin > 0000000 0031 > 0000001
Hmm, so sizeof() has different semantics in C vs. C++? While that's a little alarming, I'm wondering whether this sort of thing is likely to actually be a problem in practice. We have such a long laundry list of coding conventions already that I am inclined to believe we could add a few more without breaking our ability to do development. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers