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

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c
Date: 2018-08-15 16:01:28
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYvHzFkwChsamwbBrLNJRcRq+fyTwveFaN_YOWUsRnfpw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-www

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> We could just mandate C99, more generally.
>
> /me goes and hides in a bush.

It's hard to believe that would cost much. Personally, I'd prefer to
continue avoiding // comments and intermingled declarations of
variables and code on grounds of style and readability. But it's kind
of difficult to believe that we really need to worry about people
still running 20-year old compilers very much. My first exposure to
Tom arguing that we ought to continue supporting C89 was about a
decade ago, but the argument that people might still have older
systems in service was a lot more plausible then than it is now.

BTW, I think a bush is probably not a nearly sufficient place to hide.
The wrath of Tom will find you wherever you may go... :-)

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2018-08-15 16:02:54 Re: Facility for detecting insecure object naming
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-08-15 15:56:43 Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c

Browse pgsql-www by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2018-08-15 16:07:40 Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-08-15 15:56:43 Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c