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

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)
Date
Msg-id d274e365-a0e8-3820-f970-62e76f935a17@2ndQuadrant.com
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 08/24/2018 02:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> I saw Tom's answer, and it will work as far as it goes. But maybe we
>> should look at doing that in configure instead of putting the onus on
>> all buildfarm owners? It already knows if it's using a GNU compiler, not
>> sure how ubiquitous the -ansi and -std=c99 flags are.
> No, the only reason either of us are doing that is to force use of a
> flag that's different from what configure would select by default
> (which evidently is -std=gnu99 for gcc).  Most buildfarm owners have
> no need to do anything.
>
>             

Ah. Ok. Then your answer is good.

cheers

andrew

-- 
Andrew Dunstan                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Accidental removal of a file causing various problems
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: libpq host/hostaddr/conninfo inconsistencies