Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Chapman Flack
Subject Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)
Date
Msg-id a504204b-6bdf-da08-6899-35232378ff2a@anastigmatix.net
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
On 08/21/2018 01:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> On 2018-08-21 13:29:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> We've got a buildfarm handy that could answer the question.
>>> Let's just stick a test function in there for a day and see
>>> which animals fail.
> 
>> I think we pretty much know the answer already, anything before 2013
>> will fail.
> 
> Do we know that for sure?  I thought it was theoretical.

I thought I remembered a message where it had been looked up in docs,
but I think the one I was remembering was Peter's "According to my
research (completely untested in practice), you need 2010 for
mixed code and declarations and 2013 for named initialization
of structs." [1] which didn't quite actually say it was documented.

-Chap

[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ef986aa7-c7ca-ec34-19d9-fef38716b109%402ndquadrant.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] proposal: schema variables
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)