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 20180823001932.5utzpwkco64e6svc@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 2018-08-22 20:16:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > There's a few further potential cleanups due to relying on c99:
> > - Use __func__ unconditionally, rather than having configure test for it
> > - Use inline unconditionally, rather than having configure test for it
> > - Remove tests for AC_TYPE_INTPTR_T, AC_TYPE_UINTPTR_T,
> >   AC_TYPE_LONG_LONG_INT, we can rely on them being present.
> > - probably more in that vein
> 
> I wouldn't be in too much of a hurry to do that, particularly not the
> third item.  You are confusing "compiler is c99" with "system headers
> are c99".  Moreover, I don't see that we're buying much with such
> changes.

Yea, I am not in much of a hurry on any of them.  I think the only
argument for them is that it'd buy us a littlebit of a reduction in
configure runtime...

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: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: Removing useless DISTINCT clauses