| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: C++ compiler |
| Date: | 2013-06-25 05:39:46 |
| Message-ID: | 51C92D22.8080009@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/25/2013 01:36 PM, james wrote:
> On 25/06/2013 05:16, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It might be time to reconsider whether we should move the baseline
>> portability requirement up to C99.
>
> My understanding was that you picked up a lot of users when the Win32
> port became useful. While you can build with msys, I would think that
> leaving Microsoft's tooling behind would be a mistake, and as far as I
> am aware they have said that they are supporting C++11 but not bothering
> with C99.
In practice, a lot of what we'd want from C99 is part of C++11 (and
older) anyway. If MSVC will permit the use of such features in C where
they correspond to similar features in C++ then that'd be OK.
Otherwise I guess it'd be another reason to give in and move to a C++
subset.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeevan Chalke | 2013-06-25 05:41:00 | Re: Department of Redundancy Department: makeNode(FuncCall) division |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-06-25 05:39:27 | Re: proposal 9.4 plpgsql: allows access to call stack from GET DIAGNOSTICS statement |