Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> At the very least I think we should start to rely on 'static inline's
> working. There is not, and hasn't been for a while, any buildfarm animal
> that does not support it and we go through some ugly lengths to avoid
> relying on inline functions in headers. It's a feature that has been
> there in most compilers long before C99.
>
> My feeling is that we shouldn't go the full way to C99 because there's
> still common compilers without a complete coverage. But individual
> features are fine.

I am in full agreement.

> The list of features, in the order of perceived importance, that might
> be worthwhile thinking about are:
> * static inline
> * variadic macros
> * designated initializers (e.g. somestruct foo = { .bar = 3 } )
> * // style comments (I don't care, but it comes up often enough ...)

I don't want to add // style comments, FWIW.

What is the state of support like for variadic macros and designated
initializers? Unlike static inline, I am not aware that they are
something that was widely implemented before C99 was formalized.
--
Peter Geoghegan