Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)
От | Sandeep Thakkar |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CANFyU96LWSUTkCa3GH9znYSbLftFHdKDnb96Uvic77+9=7hVoA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c) (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
Hi,
On 2018-08-22 17:17:27 +0530, Sandeep Thakkar wrote:
> > We build windows binaries (>=9.3) on Windows 7 and Windows Server 2012 R2.
> For 9.3, the Visual Studio version is 2010 and for 9.4 and v10, we use
> 2013. For v11, we use 2017.
Sndeep: Thanks for the information. Did you ever encounter problems (at
build or during runtime) with using those binaries on older platforms?
IIRC when the binaries were built with VC++ 2013 on 9.4, we had problems running them on XP and hence we had used "/p:PlatformToolset=v120_xp" option to msbuild during build time. From v10, we stopped using that toolset and instead used the default one i.e v120
Everyone: Given the fact that all the people building windows packages
currently use a new enough stack by a fair margin, I think we should
conclude that there's no obstacle on the windows side of things.
If we agree on that, I'm going to propose a patch that includes:
- relevant cleanups to configure
- adapts sources.sgml to refer to C99 instead of C89
- add some trivial conversions to for(int i;;) and struct initializers,
so the relevant old animals fail
- adds a configure check to enable errors with vla usage (-Werror=vla)
Questions:
- do we want to make declarations at arbitrary points errors? It's
already a warning currently.
- other new restrictions that we want to introduce at the same time?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
Sandeep Thakkar
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: