Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++
От
Peter Eisentraut
Тема
Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++
Дата
Msg-id
ca5e0f09-e9c3-1dde-b312-0b2e87936ffd@2ndquadrant.com
Ответ на
Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++ (Michael Paquier)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
[HACKERS] static assertions in C++ Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++ Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++ Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++ Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++ Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++ Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++ Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++ Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++ Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++ Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++ Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++ Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++ Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++ Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++ Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++ Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++ Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++ Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++ Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++ Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++ Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
On 11/29/17 00:35, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Tom Lane 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. The answer to that question is "because it doesn't work". I'd still like a review of this patch. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
От: Fabien COELHO
Дата: