Re: C++ compiler

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Right. I don't think there are any C features we want to avoid;  are
> there any?

We're avoiding C99-and-later features that are not in C89, such as //
for comments, as well as more useful things.  It might be time to
reconsider whether we should move the baseline portability requirement
up to C99.  I'm really not in favor of moving to C++ though, as the
portability-vs-usefulness tradeoffs seem pretty unattractive there.
(Still :-(.  Bjorn should've frozen that language twenty years ago,
but he completely blew it as far as stability goes.)
        regards, tom lane