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

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Andres Freund
Тема Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)
Дата
Msg-id 20180824154623.i32aryx4bzfa4gxu@alap3.anarazel.de
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Ответы Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)
Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)
Список pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2018-08-23 18:44:34 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Pushed the first two.

Seems to have worked like expected.

> I'll send the presumably affected buildfarm owners an email, asking
> them whether they want to update.

Did that.


Andrew, as expected my buildfarm animal mylodon, which uses compiler
flags to enforce C89 compliance, failed due to this commit:
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_history.pl?nm=mylodon&br=HEAD

I'd like to change it so it doesn't enforce C89 compliance across the
board, but instead enforces the relevant standard. For that I'd need to
change CFLAGS per-branch in the buildfarm. Is that possible already? Do
I need two different config files?

Greetings,

Andres Freund


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Andres Freund
Дата:
Сообщение: master, static inline and #ifndef FRONTEND
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: remove ATTRIBUTE_FIXED_PART_SIZE