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

On 2018-08-21 14:06:18 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 08/21/2018 01:31 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2018-08-21 13:29:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > > > So, does anyone with Windows build experience want to comment on this?
> > > > The proposal is to desupport anything older than (probably) MSVC 2013,
> > > > or alternatively anything that cannot compile the attached test file.
> > > We've got a buildfarm handy that could answer the question.
> > > Let's just stick a test function in there for a day and see
> > > which animals fail.
> > I think we pretty much know the answer already, anything before 2013
> > will fail. The question is more whether that's problematic for the
> > people building on windows. My theory, quoted by Peter upthread, is
> > that it shouldn't be problematic because 2013 can build binaries that
> > run on XP etc.

> XP at least is essentially a dead platform for us. My animals are not able
> to build anything after release 10.

I'm perfectly fine with that, FWIW. It's out of extended support for
several years now. But my point was that you can newer versions of MSVC
to build things that run on XP (and more relevantly 2008, vista, 7 etc).
No idea if we'd need to change anything in our build infra for that.

Greetings,

Andres Freund