Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)

On 2018-08-21 17:58:00 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 08/21/2018 04:49 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2018-08-21 11:09:15 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > On 08/21/2018 11:06 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > XP at least is essentially a dead platform for us. My animals are not
> > > > able to build anything after release 10.
> > > I wouldn't think XP should even be on our list anymore. Microsoft hasn't
> > > supported it in 4 years.
> > XP isn't the only thing relevant here, vista and 2008 R1 are in the same
> > class.
> >
>
>
> I do have a machine in my laptop graveyard with Vista. The only WS2008
> instace I have available is R2 and AWS doesn't seem to have any AMIs for R1.
>
> Honestly, I don't think these matter terribly much. Anyone building now is
> not likely to be targeting them.

I agree, I think we should just decree that the minimum is MSVC 2013 and
that people building 12 need to deal with that.  I would personally
*additionally* would say that we officially don't support *running* (not
compiling) on XP, 2003, 2008R1 and Vista (all unsupported by MS) - but
that's a somewhat orthogonal decision.

Greetings,

Andres Freund