On 13.02.26 11:28, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> On Sun Jan 25, 2026 at 9:06 PM CET, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Named args make that easier in two ways: First, only extensions using the
>> to-be-removed option will fail. Second, removal of options reliably
>> generates
>> errors, rather than bogusly use one field for another, just because
>> the types
>> are compatible.
>
> After discussing the topic in-person with Peter at FOSDEM. We agreed
> that the best road forward was to not bother with MSVC for now. No-one
> has actually expressed an interest in being able to build C++ extension
> using MSVC, and the effort to support it is both non-trivial and not
> without downsides to the rest of the codebase. We can always come back
> to this later, possibly requiring C++20 on MSVC.
>
> So I've removed that patch and now this patchset its goal is to improve
> compatibiltity with the C++ flavor of GCC and Clang.
>
> Patch 1 and 2 add some more macro calls to our test C++ extension. These
> macros already work in GCC and Clang, this is purely to test for future
> regressinos.
I have committed these two. I'll give them some time on the buildfarm
and then look at the rest.
