Re: [PATCH] Suppress Clang 3.9 warnings

From: Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Suppress Clang 3.9 warnings
Date: 2017-03-24 12:52:26
Message-ID: 20170324125226.GA16830@e733.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Tom,

Since no one seems to be particularly excited about this patch I'm
marking it as "Returned with feedback" to save reviewers time.

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:21:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:57:15AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Seems like the correct solution is to
> >> absorb that fix, either by updating to a newer autoconf release or by
> >> carrying our own version of AC_CHECK_DECLS until they come out with one.
>
> > As you mention upthread, that Autoconf commit is still newer than every
> > Autoconf release. (Last release was 58 months ago.) Altering configure.ac to
> > work around the bug would be reasonable, but it feels heavy relative to the
> > benefit of suppressing some warnings.
>
> It does seem like rather a lot of work, but I think it's preferable to
> hacking up the coding in port.h. Mainly because we could booby-trap the
> substitute AC_CHECK_DECLS to make sure we revert it whenever autoconf 2.70
> does materialize (a check on m4_PACKAGE_VERSION, like the one at
> configure.in line 22, ought to do the trick); whereas I do not think
> we'd remember to de-kluge port.h if we kluge around it there.
>
> I'm fine with leaving it alone, too.
>
> regards, tom lane

--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2017-03-24 12:59:24 Re: Backend crash on non-exclusive backup cancel
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2017-03-24 12:49:22 Re: increasing the default WAL segment size