Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6

On 2015-07-01 19:05:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > Since, buildfarm/quiet inline test issues aside, pademelon is the only
> > animal not supporting inlines and varargs, I think we should just go
> > ahead and start to use both.
>
> I'm good with using inlines, since as I pointed out upthread, that won't
> actually break anything. I'm much less convinced that varargs macros
> represent a winning tradeoff. Using those *will* irredeemably break
> pre-C99 compilers, and AFAICS we do not have an urgent need for them.

Well, I'll happily take that.

> (BTW, where are you drawing the conclusion that all these compilers
> support varargs? I do not see a configure test for it.)

There is, although not in all branches: PGAC_C_VA_ARGS. We optionally
use vararg macros today, for elog (b853eb9), so I assume it works ;)

Greetings,

Andres Freund