Re: C++ compiler - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From james
Subject Re: C++ compiler
Date
Msg-id 51C92C73.9020408@mansionfamily.plus.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: C++ compiler  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: C++ compiler
List pgsql-hackers
On 25/06/2013 05:16, Tom Lane wrote:
It might be time to reconsider whether we should move the baseline portability requirement up to C99.

My understanding was that you picked up a lot of users when the Win32 port became useful.  While you can build with msys, I would think that leaving Microsoft's tooling behind would be a mistake, and as far as I am aware they have said that they are supporting C++11 but not bothering with C99.

I'm really not in favor of moving to C++ though, as the portability-vs-usefulness tradeoffs seem pretty unattractive there.

As a long-time C++ programmer I don't see what the problem would be beyond (some) existing contributors being wary of the unknown.  Its not as if any platform developed enough to be a sane db server has not got a decent C++ compiler or two.  Portability is only really a problem with a subset of new C++11 features.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ashutosh Bapat
Date:
Subject: Re: Problem building in a directory shared from Mac to Ubuntu
Next
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: C++ compiler