| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Juan José Santamaría Flecha <juanjo(dot)santamaria(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Windows build warnings |
| Date: | 2021-11-23 15:03:09 |
| Message-ID: | 4173932.1637679789@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> Right ... the problem, as I understand, is that the syntax for
> [[maybe_unused]] is different from what we can do with the current
> pg_attribute_unused -- [[maybe_unused]] goes before the variable name.
> We would need to define pg_attribute_unused macro (maybe have it take
> the variable name and initializator value as arguments?), and also
> define PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY in the same style.
I've thought all along that PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY was making
unwarranted assumptions about what the underlying syntax would be,
and it seems I was right. Anyone want to look into what it'd take
to change this?
(It might be an idea to introduce a new macro with a slightly
different name, so we don't have to touch every usage site
right away.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-11-23 15:04:08 | Re: Should rename "startup process" to something else? |
| Previous Message | Chapman Flack | 2021-11-23 14:44:46 | Re: [RFC] ASOF Join |