| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [PATCH] Compile without warning with gcc's -Wtype-limits, -Wempty-body |
| Date: | 2013-01-16 15:11:23 |
| Message-ID: | 50F6C31B.3040308@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/15/13 6:36 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I just think that the price of fixing a single Assert() that hasn't
> changed in years where the variable isn't likely to ever get signed is
> acceptable.
Well, once you get past that one change you proposed, you will also find
pg_standby.c: In function 'SetWALFileNameForCleanup':
pg_standby.c:348:3: error: comparison of unsigned expression >= 0 is
always true [-Werror=type-limits]
(which, curiously, is the only one that clang complains about).
I don't like removing safety checks from code when there is no other
mechanism that could make up for it somehow.
I think the best practice at the moment, as with most gcc -Wextra
warnings, is to manually check them once in a while.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Claudio Freire | 2013-01-16 15:23:14 | Re: Parallel query execution |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-01-16 15:08:33 | Re: log_lock_waits to identify transaction's relation |