On 2014-09-24 17:39:19 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: > > > On 9/24/14 9:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > >> Agreed, but what about non-GCC compilers? > > > > > Stick AC_PROG_CC_C99 into configure.in. > > > > I think that's a bad idea, unless you mean to do it only on Solaris. > > If we do that unconditionally, we will pretty much stop getting any > > warnings about C99-isms on modern platforms. I am not aware that > > there has been any agreement to move our portability goalposts up > > to C99. > > AFAIK we cannot move all the way to C99, because MSVC doesn't support > it.
FWIW, msvc has supported a good part of C99 for long while. There's bits and pieces it doesn't, but it's not things I think we're likely to adopt. The most commonly complained about one is C99 variable declarations. I can't see PG adopting that tomorrow. >From VS 2013 onwards they're trying hard to be C99 and C11 compatible. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
