Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20150701161447.GB30708@awork2.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6
Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6 Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6 Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6 |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, During the 9.5 cycle, and earlier, the topic of increasing our minimum bar for compilers came up a bunch of times. Specifically whether we still should continue to use C90 as a baseline. I think the time has come to rely at least on some newer features. At the very least I think we should start to rely on 'static inline's working. There is not, and hasn't been for a while, any buildfarm animal that does not support it and we go through some ugly lengths to avoid relying on inline functions in headers. It's a feature that has been there in most compilers long before C99. My feeling is that we shouldn't go the full way to C99 because there's still common compilers without a complete coverage. But individual features are fine. The list of features, in the order of perceived importance, that might be worthwhile thinking about are: * static inline * variadic macros * designated initializers (e.g. somestruct foo = { .bar = 3 } ) * // style comments (I don't care, but it comes up often enough ...) Others might have different items. I think we should *not* decide on all of them at once. We should pick items that are supported everywhere and uncontroversial and do those first. Greetings, Andres Freund
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: