Re: Things I learned about PG8 on AIX5.3 with XLC compiler

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: "Mohan, Ross" <RMohan(at)arbinet(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Things I learned about PG8 on AIX5.3 with XLC compiler
Date: 2005-06-08 03:18:27
Message-ID: 26510.1118200707@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> Mohan, Ross wrote:
>> 2) Not clear (to me, a nonprogrammer) whether this is GNU C, ANSI C,
>> "Postgres" C, or what the overall coding protocol is.

> Postgres is mostly ANSI C89, with limited use of GNU C extensions (which
> should be limited to inside #ifdef __GNUC__ blocks, AFAIK).

s/mostly/entirely/ and s/should be/are/, please. If you can identify
specific violations of those coding rules, we are all ears.

BTW, we really really need some more non-gcc compilers in the
buildfarm. I realized this afternoon that CVS tip is breaking the
perennial bugaboo that gcc does not complain about

static int foo(...);

...

int foo(...)
{
...
}

that is omitting "static" from the actual routine definition --- which
plenty of other compilers do complain about; so why don't we have a few
buildfarm members that will yap loud and long about this?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Steve Atkins 2005-06-08 03:29:58 Re: To SPAM or not to SPAM...
Previous Message Geoffrey 2005-06-08 02:56:16 Re: To SPAM or not to SPAM...