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
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... |