Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)
Date
Msg-id 20180821175429.qgt5qjmmukfhsy54@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2018-08-21 13:46:10 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2018-08-21 13:29:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> We've got a buildfarm handy that could answer the question.
> >> Let's just stick a test function in there for a day and see
> >> which animals fail.
> 
> > I think we pretty much know the answer already, anything before 2013
> > will fail.
> 
> Do we know that for sure?  I thought it was theoretical.

Pretty much. I'm on mobile data so I don't want to search too much, but
I've previously looked it up, and designated initializer support was
introduced in 2013.  See e.g. the graph in
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/somasegar/2013/06/28/c-conformance-roadmap/

Greetings,

Andres Freund


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)
Next
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] proposal: schema variables