Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tDmgs-003AMk-Jg for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2024 15:32:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tDmgp-006fvo-Ti for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2024 15:32:23 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tDmgp-006fvg-LF for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2024 15:32:23 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tDmgn-002wZW-De for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2024 15:32:23 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 4AKFW9lI152146; Wed, 20 Nov 2024 10:32:09 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Peter Eisentraut cc: Thomas Munro , Sam James , pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: Build failure with GCC 15 (defaults to -std=gnu23) In-reply-to: References: <87o72eo9iu.fsf@gentoo.org> <3073930.1731867112@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3160019.1731875201@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3169079.1731880169@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3175762.1731883847@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut message dated "Wed, 20 Nov 2024 09:35:48 +0100" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <152144.1732116729.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 10:32:09 -0500 Message-ID: <152145.1732116729@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Peter Eisentraut writes: > Note that if we backpatch C23 support, we also need to backpatch at > least commits a67a49648d9 and d2b4b4c2259. Yeah. Our normal theory for this kind of thing is "people are likely to build our old branches with modern toolchains", so we are going to have to back-patch C23 compatibility sooner or later. In fact, we'll have to back-patch to 9.2, or else decide that those branches are unbuildable on modern platforms and hence out of scope for compatibility testing. We have a little bit of grace time before this needs to happen, but perhaps not very much. regards, tom lane