Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c

Hi,

On 2018-08-15 18:31:10 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2018-08-15 18:13:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Experimenting here says that even reasonably modern gcc's won't take
> >> declarations-inside-for without "--std=c99" or such.
>
> > I think autoconf's magic knows about most of that:
> > — Macro: AC_PROG_CC_C99
>
> Ah, of course. What about the MSVC build?

It looks like it mostly just enables that by default. But I only looked
cursorily. It's a bit annoying because that makes it harder to be sure
which animals support what. Looks like e.g. hammerkop (supposedly msvc
2005) might not support the subset we want; not that I'd loose sleep
over raising the minimum msvc in master a bit.

> > I think we could get a start by adding that test to configure, without
> > relying on it for now (i.e. keeping mylodon with -Wc99-extensions
> > -Werror=c99-extensions alive). That'd tell us about which machines,
> > besides presumably gaur, we'd need to either kick to the curb or change.
>
> Sure, no objection to putting that in just to see how much of the
> buildfarm can handle it. If the answer turns out to be "a lot",
> we might have to reconsider, but gathering data seems like the
> first thing to do.

Cool. Too late today (in Europe for a few more days), but I'll try to
come up with something tomorrow.

Greetings,

Andres Freund