Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> At the very least I think we should start to rely on 'static inline's
> working. There is not, and hasn't been for a while, any buildfarm animal
> that does not support it

pademelon doesn't.

Also, I think there are some other non-gcc animals that nominally allow
"static inline" but will generate warnings when such functions are
unreferenced in a particular compile (that's what the "quiet inline"
configure test is about). That would be hugely annoying for development,
though maybe we don't care too much if it's only a build target.

I'm not against requiring static inline; it would be a huge improvement
really. But we should not fool ourselves that this comes at zero
compatibility cost.

> The list of features, in the order of perceived importance, that might
> be worthwhile thinking about are:
> * static inline
> * variadic macros
> * designated initializers (e.g. somestruct foo = { .bar = 3 } )
> * // style comments (I don't care, but it comes up often enough ...)

Of these I think only the first is really worth breaking portability
for.

regards, tom lane