Re: Removing obsolete configure checks

Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>

From: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-07-23T04:57:47Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 4:05 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 7:00 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> All of the above are required by C99 and/or SUSv2, and the configure-using
> >> buildfarm members are unanimous in reporting that they have them, and
> >> msvc/Solution.pm expects Windows to have them.
>
> > I think the same now applies to <wctype.h>, without gaur.  So I
> > propose the attached.  I split it into two patches, because 0001 is
> > based on scraping build farm configure output, while 0002 is an
> > educated guess and might finish up needing to be reverted if I'm
> > wrong.
>
> +1.  SUSv2 is perfectly clear that <wctype.h> is supposed to declare
> these functions.  I'm not surprised that gaur's 1996-ish system headers
> failed to see into the future; but prairiedog is up to speed on this
> point, and I should think all the surviving BF animals are too.

Thanks.  After looking more closely I pushed it as one commit.  (I
suspect that we have some redundant #includes around here but my
current mission is focused on redundant configure/portability gloop.)



Commits

  1. Remove configure probe for wctype.h.

  2. Assume that we have signed integral types and flexible array members.

  3. Assume that we have <wchar.h>.

  4. Assume that we have cbrt().

  5. Assume that we have functional, 64-bit fseeko()/ftello().

  6. Assume that we have isinf().

  7. Assume that we have memmove().

  8. Assume that we have rint().

  9. Assume that we have utime() and <utime.h>.