On 2014-09-24 16:26:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > On 9/24/14 9:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Agreed, but what about non-GCC compilers?
>
> > Stick AC_PROG_CC_C99 into configure.in.
>
> I think that's a bad idea, unless you mean to do it only on Solaris.
> If we do that unc
On 2014-09-25 10:56:56 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
> > From VS 2013 onwards they're trying hard to be C99 and C11 compatible.
>
> Sounds great. Is VS2013 released already?
Yes.
> If so, maybe we can think about moving to C99 in 2016 or so; at least
> assuming you can bui
Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-09-24 17:39:19 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > AFAIK we cannot move all the way to C99, because MSVC doesn't support
> > it.
>
> FWIW, msvc has supported a good part of C99 for long while. There's bits
> and pieces it doesn't, but it's not things I think we're like
24.09.2014, 23:26, Tom Lane kirjoitti:
Peter Eisentraut writes:
On 9/24/14 9:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Agreed, but what about non-GCC compilers?
Stick AC_PROG_CC_C99 into configure.in.
I think that's a bad idea, unless you mean to do it only on Solaris.
If we do that unconditionally, we will
On 2014-09-24 17:39:19 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > > On 9/24/14 9:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Agreed, but what about non-GCC compilers?
> >
> > > Stick AC_PROG_CC_C99 into configure.in.
> >
> > I think that's a bad idea, unless you mean to do
On 9/24/14 4:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> On 9/24/14 9:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Agreed, but what about non-GCC compilers?
>
>> Stick AC_PROG_CC_C99 into configure.in.
>
> I think that's a bad idea, unless you mean to do it only on Solaris.
> If we do that unconditionall
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > On 9/24/14 9:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Agreed, but what about non-GCC compilers?
>
> > Stick AC_PROG_CC_C99 into configure.in.
>
> I think that's a bad idea, unless you mean to do it only on Solaris.
> If we do that unconditionally, we will pretty
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 9/24/14 9:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Agreed, but what about non-GCC compilers?
> Stick AC_PROG_CC_C99 into configure.in.
I think that's a bad idea, unless you mean to do it only on Solaris.
If we do that unconditionally, we will pretty much stop getting any
warnings
On 9/24/14 9:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Oskari Saarenmaa writes:
>> ... so to enable XPG6 we'd need to use C99 mode anyway.
>
> OK.
>
>> Could we just use
>> -std=gnu99 (with -fgnu89-inline if required) with GCC on Solaris? ISTM
>> it would be cleaner to just properly enable c99 mode rather tha
24.09.2014, 16:21, Tom Lane kirjoitti:
Oskari Saarenmaa writes:
... so to enable XPG6 we'd need to use C99 mode anyway.
OK.
Could we just use
-std=gnu99 (with -fgnu89-inline if required) with GCC on Solaris? ISTM
it would be cleaner to just properly enable c99 mode rather than define
an un
Oskari Saarenmaa writes:
> ... so to enable XPG6 we'd need to use C99 mode anyway.
OK.
> Could we just use
> -std=gnu99 (with -fgnu89-inline if required) with GCC on Solaris? ISTM
> it would be cleaner to just properly enable c99 mode rather than define
> an undocumented macro to use a coupl
On 2014-09-24 08:25:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm worried that __C99FEATURES__ might do other, not-so-C89-compatible
> things in later Solaris releases. Possibly that risk could be addressed
> by having src/template/solaris make an OS version check before adding the
> switch, but it'd be a bit p
24.09.2014, 15:25, Tom Lane kirjoitti:
Oskari Saarenmaa writes:
GCC 4.9 build on Solaris 10 shows these warnings about isinf:
float.c: In function 'is_infinite':
float.c:178:2: warning: implicit declaration of function 'isinf'
Ugh.
isinf declaration is in which is included by ,
but it's su
Oskari Saarenmaa writes:
> GCC 4.9 build on Solaris 10 shows these warnings about isinf:
> float.c: In function 'is_infinite':
> float.c:178:2: warning: implicit declaration of function 'isinf'
Ugh.
> isinf declaration is in which is included by ,
> but it's surrounded by #if defined(_STDC_C9
GCC 4.9 build on Solaris 10 shows these warnings about isinf:
float.c: In function 'is_infinite':
float.c:178:2: warning: implicit declaration of function 'isinf'
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
See
http://pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_stage_log.pl?nm=dingo&dt=2014-09-23%2002%3A52%3A00&stg=m
15 matches
Mail list logo
