Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6
Date: 2015-08-04 19:30:19
Message-ID: 20150804193019.GE32119@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2015-08-04 15:20:14 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> OK, so do we want to rip out all instances of the static inline dance
> in favor of more straightforward coding? Do we then shut pandemelon
> and any other affected buildfarm members down as unsupported, or what?

I think all that happens is that they'll log a couple more warnings
about defined but unused static functions. configure already defines
inline away if not supported.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Janes 2015-08-04 19:38:13 Re: FSM versus GIN pending list bloat
Previous Message Robert Haas 2015-08-04 19:20:14 Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6