Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++
Date: 2017-11-29 05:35:51
Message-ID: CAB7nPqTMWaJNwgEq_tyJwRDXMKk6_uvYqrFaWLsLAW_SK6nvSQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Meh. We support ancient versions of C for backwards compatibility
>> reasons, but considering that compiling backend code with C++ isn't
>> officially supported at all, I'm not sure we need to cater to ancient
>> C++ compilers. We could quibble about the value of "ancient" of
>> course --- Peter, do you have an idea when this construct became
>> widely supported?
>>
>> I do think it might be a better idea to put a #error there instead
>> of silently disabling static assertions. Then at least we could
>> hope to get complaints if anyone *is* trying to use ancient C++,
>> and thereby gauge whether it's worth working any harder for this.
>
> I guess my question was whether we couldn't just use the same
> workaround we use for old C compilers.

This got unanswered and the thread has stalled for two months, so for
now I am marking the patch as returned with feedback.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2017-11-29 05:38:19 Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2017-11-29 05:33:08 Re: [HACKERS] proposal - Default namespaces for XPath expressions (PostgreSQL 11)