Horton
Menu

Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c

Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-08-15T19:21:30Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 

On 08/15/2018 03:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> FWIW, the issue I've got with what C99 did is that you can narrow the
> *start* of the scope of a local variable easily, but not the *end* of
> its scope, which seems to me to be solving at most half of the problem.
> To solve the whole problem, you end up needing a nested block anyway.
>
> I do dearly miss the ability to easily limit the scope of a loop's
> control variable to just the loop, eg
>
> 	for (int i = 0; ...) { ... }
>
> But AFAIK that's C++ not C99.
>
> 			



Agree completely.

cheers

andrew

-- 
Andrew Dunstan                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Remove test for VA_ARGS, implied by C99.

  2. Introduce minimal C99 usage to verify compiler support.

  3. Require C99 (and thus MSCV 2013 upwards).

  4. Require a C99-compliant snprintf(), and remove related workarounds.

  5. Try to enable C99 in configure, but do not rely on it (yet).

  6. Make snprintf.c follow the C99 standard for snprintf's result value.

  7. Clean up assorted misuses of snprintf()'s result value.