Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c

Hi,

On 2018-08-15 18:31:10 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > I think we could get a start by adding that test to configure, without
> > relying on it for now (i.e. keeping mylodon with -Wc99-extensions
> > -Werror=c99-extensions alive). That'd tell us about which machines,
> > besides presumably gaur, we'd need to either kick to the curb or change.
> 
> Sure, no objection to putting that in just to see how much of the
> buildfarm can handle it.  If the answer turns out to be "a lot",
> we might have to reconsider, but gathering data seems like the
> first thing to do.

I've pushed a minimal version adding the C99 test. If we were to
actually go for this permanently, we'd likely want to clean up a bunch
of other tests (say removing PGAC_C_VA_ARGS), but I don't see much point
in doing that while just gathering evidence (to the contrary, it seems
like it'd just muddy the water a bit).

Greetings,

Andres Freund