Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)

On 8/22/18 10:56 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 22/08/2018 14:02, Andres Freund wrote:
>> If we agree on that, I'm going to propose a patch that includes:
>> - relevant cleanups to configure
>> - adapts sources.sgml to refer to C99 instead of C89
>> - add some trivial conversions to for(int i;;) and struct initializers,
>>   so the relevant old animals fail
>> - adds a configure check to enable errors with vla usage (-Werror=vla)
> 
> sounds good

Sounds good to me.

> 
>> - do we want to make declarations at arbitrary points errors? It's
>>   already a warning currently.
> 
> While there are legitimate criticisms, it's a standard feature in C,
> C++, and many other languages, so I don't see what we'd gain by fighting it.

+1.=

-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net