Re: Fixing warnings in back branches?

On 2015-12-14 10:55:05 +0000, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > I personally am not bothered by a handful of spurious warnings in the
> > back branches, but at this point you're very unlikely to see a new
> > warning introduced into 9.1 while backpatching.
>
> These are new warnings older compilers didn't detect?

Yes. We fixed most of them since, but that doesn't help much when
compiling 9.1.

> Perhaps just adding some -Wno-* flags would make more sense than
> changing code and possibly introducing bugs.

I think that's a case-by-case decision. Just verbatimly backpatching
something that stewed in master for a year or two seems fine. That's imo
often preferrable because often it's just that existing warning
categories grew more "vigilant", or however you want to describe it. So
if you disable those, you also remove coverage...

Andres