From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>,
        pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Build failure with GCC 15 (defaults to -std=gnu23)
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+hUKG+5ErSyS2+rqx0bvKAWadP9NQBOsUgZVpz74ZB0DA=nJw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <87o72eo9iu.fsf@gentoo.org> <3073930.1731867112@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+hUKGJsuBiBcYnmJhGUNEg6Ud3n+C3K8c6em6RTOgu1E-dbwg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3160019.1731875201@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+hUKGLJnhpJBrsutH2aK91ARMS+XCez5P8XrR-kwdfSyLXGiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <3169079.1731880169@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+hUKGJEnmapE7YYEfdJYZ-yGmcDpVGRrQ_eEVdcux26ZNJq_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <3175762.1731883847@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+hUKGJBNYAAYE51Ef-reKo1cUDvs3GgnChyh4ETqiSVQ0MR5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <dec2bd5b-66e3-4750-83ef-e597d539c2f4@eisentraut.org>
 <152145.1732116729@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <b906d958-4b37-47f3-9efb-79b575042661@eisentraut.org>
 <CA+hUKGJma08NBfwv8kiLAW08wFaz-WxDuXWbENi92XdE46N6ZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <485f5982-18c5-4210-9c7d-7c05453f7033@eisentraut.org>
 <CA+hUKGL0LWK7hVO9r2eb3hFDBptZByOkAKGAjXKJ5mqd9hs_fA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1447160.1732565223@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+hUKG+5ErSyS2+rqx0bvKAWadP9NQBOsUgZVpz74ZB0DA=nJw@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
	message dated "Tue, 26 Nov 2024 15:03:49 +1300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1578469.1732587191.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2024 21:13:11 -0500
Message-ID: <1578470.1732587191@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1578470.1732587191%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> ... I think it might be unlikely to
> upset anyone if it works something like this:

> * For 16+ nothing, we're going to be C23 clean (after a couple more
> back-patches)
> * For 9.2-15 on GCC < 15 it'll stay as nothing too
> * For 9.2-15 on early GCC 15 adopter distros like Fedora/Gentoo etc
> we'll detect C23, and perhaps start spitting out -std=c17 (if you've
> detected C23, I think you can assume that C17 is available so we don't
> have to do a C17-C11-C99[-C89] search?)
> * When 12-15 fall out of support and all compilers are eventually C23+
> compilers, they'll eventually always be getting -std=c17 by the above
> rules but no one will mind about that in the ancient branches

Sounds plausible to me.  Will you work on making that happen?

			regards, tom lane