Re: pg_upgrade's exec_prog() coding improvement

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> It sounds like it is suggestioning to use more specific attribute
> decoration. This might be relevant:

> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Warning-Options.html

> -Wmissing-format-attribute
> Warn about function pointers that might be candidates for format
> attributes. Note these are only possible candidates, not absolute ones.
> GCC guesses that function pointers with format attributes that are used
> in assignment, initialization, parameter passing or return statements
> should have a corresponding format attribute in the resulting type. I.e.
> the left-hand side of the assignment or initialization, the type of the
> parameter variable, or the return type of the containing function
> respectively should also have a format attribute to avoid the warning.

> GCC also warns about function definitions that might be candidates
> for format attributes. Again, these are only possible candidates. GCC
> guesses that format attributes might be appropriate for any function
> that calls a function like vprintf or vscanf, but this might not always
> be the case, and some functions for which format attributes are
> appropriate may not be detected.

> and I see this option enabled in configure.in.

Hm. I'm a bit dubious about enabling warnings that are so admittedly
heuristic as this. They admit that the warnings might be wrong, and
yet document no way to shut them up. I think we might be better advised
to not enable this warning.

regards, tom lane