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

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)
Дата
Msg-id 22855.1535135819@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>)
Ответы Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)
Список pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I saw Tom's answer, and it will work as far as it goes. But maybe we 
> should look at doing that in configure instead of putting the onus on 
> all buildfarm owners? It already knows if it's using a GNU compiler, not 
> sure how ubiquitous the -ansi and -std=c99 flags are.

No, the only reason either of us are doing that is to force use of a
flag that's different from what configure would select by default
(which evidently is -std=gnu99 for gcc).  Most buildfarm owners have
no need to do anything.

            regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: About those snprintf invocation macros
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)