Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20180824154623.i32aryx4bzfa4gxu@alap3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c) (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)
Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 2018-08-23 18:44:34 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > Pushed the first two. Seems to have worked like expected. > I'll send the presumably affected buildfarm owners an email, asking > them whether they want to update. Did that. Andrew, as expected my buildfarm animal mylodon, which uses compiler flags to enforce C89 compliance, failed due to this commit: https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_history.pl?nm=mylodon&br=HEAD I'd like to change it so it doesn't enforce C89 compliance across the board, but instead enforces the relevant standard. For that I'd need to change CFLAGS per-branch in the buildfarm. Is that possible already? Do I need two different config files? Greetings, Andres Freund
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: