Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6
Date: 2015-07-01 23:05:08
Message-ID: 27127.1435791908@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

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

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2015-07-01 23:09:37 Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6
Previous Message Andres Freund 2015-07-01 22:24:04 Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6