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 20180824154623.i32aryx4bzfa4gxu@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)
Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2018-08-23 18:44:34 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Pushed the first two.

Seems to have worked like expected.

> I'll send the presumably affected buildfarm owners an email, asking
> them whether they want to update.

Did that.


Andrew, as expected my buildfarm animal mylodon, which uses compiler
flags to enforce C89 compliance, failed due to this commit:
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_history.pl?nm=mylodon&br=HEAD

I'd like to change it so it doesn't enforce C89 compliance across the
board, but instead enforces the relevant standard. For that I'd need to
change CFLAGS per-branch in the buildfarm. Is that possible already? Do
I need two different config files?

Greetings,

Andres Freund


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: master, static inline and #ifndef FRONTEND
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: remove ATTRIBUTE_FIXED_PART_SIZE