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

On 08/24/2018 03:42 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 08/24/2018 02:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>>> On 2018-08-24 14:09:09 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>>> However, we only support VS2017 down to 9.6 and Vs2015 down to 9.5. 
>>>> Perhaps
>>>> we should consider backpatching support for those down to 9.3.
>>> Hm, I have no strong objections to that.   I don't think it's strictly
>>> necessary, given 2013 is supported across the board, but for the non 
>>> MSVC
>>> world, we do fix compiler issues in older branches.  There's not that
>>> much code for the newer versions afaict?
>> +1 for taking a look at how big a patch it would be.  But I kind of
>> thought we'd intentionally rejected back-patching some of those changes
>> to begin with, so I'm not sure the end decision will change.
>
> The VS2017 patch applies cleanly to 9.5, so that seems easy. The 
> VS2015 patch from 9.5 needs a very small amount of adjustment by the 
> look of it for 9.3 and 9.4, after which I hope the VS2017 patch would 
> again apply cleanly.
>
> I'll try to put this together.
>
> The trouble with not back patching support to all live branches as new 
> versions come in is that it acts as a significant discouragement to 
> buildfarm owners to use the latest Visual Studio versions. I've never 
> argued stringly on this point before, but I think i'm goiung to ber 
> inclined to in future.
>
> Meanwhile, I will turn bowerbird back on but just for >= 9.6 for now.
>


I've pushed support for the latest MSVC compilers back to all live branches.

cheers

andrew

-- 
Andrew Dunstan                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services