From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: perl 5.36, C99, -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wshadow=compatible-local |
Date: | 2022-12-29 18:51:37 |
Message-ID: | 586729.1672339897@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> It turns out to not work terribly well. gcc, quite reasonably, warns about the
> pragma used in .c files, and there's no easy way that I found to have autoconf
> name its test .h. We could include a test header in the compile test, but that
> also adds some complication. As gcc has supported the pragma since 2000, I
> think a simple
> #ifdef __GNUC__
> #define HAVE_PRAGMA_SYSTEM_HEADER 1
> #endif
> should suffice.
We might find that some GCC-impostor compilers have trouble with it,
but if so we can adjust the #ifdef here.
Getting nitpicky, I suggest calling it "HAVE_PRAGMA_GCC_SYSTEM_HEADER"
to align better with what you actually have to write. Also:
+ * Newer versions the perl headers trigger a lot of warnings with our compiler
"Newer versions of ..." please. Otherwise LGTM.
> Should we backpatch this? Given the volume of warnings it's probably a good
> idea. But I'd let it step in HEAD for a few days of buildfarm coverage first.
+1 to both points.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-12-29 18:52:14 | Re: BUG #17717: Regression in vacuumdb (15 is slower than 10/11 and possible memory issue) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-12-29 18:45:49 | Re: BUG #17717: Regression in vacuumdb (15 is slower than 10/11 and possible memory issue) |