| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Subject: | Re: compiler warnings with gcc 4.8 and -Og |
| Date: | 2022-06-02 05:09:58 |
| Message-ID: | 852626.1654146598@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> writes:
> forking: <20220302205058(dot)GJ15744(at)telsasoft(dot)com>: Re: Adding CI to our tree
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 02:50:58PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>> BTW (regarding the last patch), I just noticed that -Og optimization can cause
>> warnings with gcc-4.8.5-39.el7.x86_64.
I'm a little dubious about whether -Og is a case we should pay special
attention to? Our standard optimization setting for gcc is -O2, and
once you go away from that there are any number of weird cases that
may or may not produce warnings. I'm not entirely willing to buy
the proposition that we must suppress warnings on
any-random-gcc-version combined with any-random-options.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2022-06-02 06:08:34 | Re: Multi-Master Logical Replication |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-06-02 04:48:56 | Re: [PATCH] Fix pg_upgrade test from v10 |