Hi, On 2018-08-15 18:31:10 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2018-08-15 18:13:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Experimenting here says that even reasonably modern gcc's won't take > >> declarations-inside-for without "--std=c99" or such. > > > I think autoconf's magic knows about most of that: > > — Macro: AC_PROG_CC_C99 > > Ah, of course. What about the MSVC build?
It looks like it mostly just enables that by default. But I only looked cursorily. It's a bit annoying because that makes it harder to be sure which animals support what. Looks like e.g. hammerkop (supposedly msvc 2005) might not support the subset we want; not that I'd loose sleep over raising the minimum msvc in master a bit. > > I think we could get a start by adding that test to configure, without > > relying on it for now (i.e. keeping mylodon with -Wc99-extensions > > -Werror=c99-extensions alive). That'd tell us about which machines, > > besides presumably gaur, we'd need to either kick to the curb or change. > > Sure, no objection to putting that in just to see how much of the > buildfarm can handle it. If the answer turns out to be "a lot", > we might have to reconsider, but gathering data seems like the > first thing to do. Cool. Too late today (in Europe for a few more days), but I'll try to come up with something tomorrow. Greetings, Andres Freund
