From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | mikael(dot)kjellstrom(at)gmail(dot)com |
Subject: | conchuela doesn't like gnu_printf anymore |
Date: | 2022-08-06 16:59:24 |
Message-ID: | 120507.1659805164@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Buildfarm animal conchuela recently started spitting a lot of warnings
like this one:
conchuela | 2022-08-06 12:35:46 | /home/pgbf/buildroot/HEAD/pgsql.build/../pgsql/src/include/port.h:208:70: warning: 'format' attribute argument not supported: gnu_printf [-Wignored-attributes]
I first thought we'd broken something, but upon digging through the
buildfarm history, the oldest build showing these warnings is
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=conchuela&dt=2022-07-18%2020%3A20%3A18
The new commits in that build don't look related, but what does look
related is that the choice of C++ compiler changed:
configure: using compiler=gcc 8.3 [DragonFly] Release/2019-02-22
configure: using CXX=ccache clang++14
vs
configure: using compiler=gcc 8.3 [DragonFly] Release/2019-02-22
configure: using CXX=g++
This is seemingly an intentional configuration change, because the
animal is reporting different config_env than before. However,
we decide what to set PG_PRINTF_ATTRIBUTE to based on what CC
likes, and if CXX doesn't like it then you'll get these warnings.
(The warnings only appear in C++ compiles, else there'd REALLY
be a lot of them.)
Is it worth the trouble to try to set PG_PRINTF_ATTRIBUTE differently
in C and C++ builds? I doubt it. Probably the right fix for this
is to use matched C and C++ compilers, either both clang or both gcc.
I fear that inconsistency could lead to bigger problems than some
warnings.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-08-06 18:13:26 | Re: optimize lookups in snapshot [sub]xip arrays |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-08-06 16:12:56 | Re: A cost issue in ORDER BY + LIMIT |