Re: Back branches vs. gcc 4.8.0

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:50 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Hm, I see 4 places in HEAD. But in any case, is

My mistake. I had REL9_2_STABLE checked out.

> int16 values[1]; /* VARIABLE LENGTH ARRAY */
> } int2vector; /* VARIABLE LENGTH STRUCT */
>
> really better than
>
> int16 values[FLEXIBLE_ARRAY_MEMBER];
> } int2vector;
>
> ? I don't think so.

I can see your point. Now that I look at the comments beside
FLEXIBLE_ARRAY_MEMBER, I see that indeed, as I suspected, the
Microsoft flexible array members are not completely compatible with
C99 style flexible arrays, so this may be the least-worst option.

--
Peter Geoghegan