Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6
Date
Msg-id 27127.1435791908@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> Since, buildfarm/quiet inline test issues aside, pademelon is the only
> animal not supporting inlines and varargs, I think we should just go
> ahead and start to use both.

I'm good with using inlines, since as I pointed out upthread, that won't
actually break anything.  I'm much less convinced that varargs macros
represent a winning tradeoff.  Using those *will* irredeemably break
pre-C99 compilers, and AFAICS we do not have an urgent need for them.

(BTW, where are you drawing the conclusion that all these compilers
support varargs?  I do not see a configure test for it.)
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6