On Monday, June 25, 2012 05:57:51 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@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
