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 20180822150147.jnpwwcsndqyf7xda@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2018-08-22 16:56:15 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 22/08/2018 14:02, Andres Freund wrote:
> > - do we want to make declarations at arbitrary points errors? It's
> >   already a warning currently.
> 
> While there are legitimate criticisms, it's a standard feature in C,
> C++, and many other languages, so I don't see what we'd gain by fighting it.

I personally don't really care - for C there's really not much of a
difference (contrast to C++ with RAII). But Robert and Tom both said
this would be an issue with moving to C99 for them. I don't want to hold
up making progress here by fighting over this issue.

Greetings,

Andres Freund


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)
Next
From: "Bossart, Nathan"
Date:
Subject: Re: Improve behavior of concurrent ANALYZE/VACUUM