From: | Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: "errno" not set in case of "libm" functions (HPUX) |
Date: | 2011-05-27 08:15:13 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTi=yvHN1OeM9KP7U_r0Qp4SkjReCnQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > On tor, 2011-05-26 at 12:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I tried this on my HP-UX 10.20 box, and it didn't work very nicely:
> >> configure decided that the compiler accepted +Olibmerrno, so I got a
> >> compile full of
> >> cc: warning 450: Unrecognized option +Olibmerrno.
> >> warnings. The reason is that PGAC_PROG_CC_CFLAGS_OPT does not pay any
> >> attention to whether the proposed flag generates a warning. That seems
> >> like a bug --- is there any situation where we'd want to accept a flag
> >> that does generate a warning? I'm thinking that macro should set
> >> ac_c_werror_flag=yes, the same way PGAC_C_INLINE does.
>
> > I think so.
>
> OK, committed with that addition.
>
> Thanks,
Is it worth to backport this?
> > We could also do that globally, but that would probably be something for
> > the next release.
>
> Hmm. I'm a bit scared of how much might break. I don't think the
> autoconf tests are generally designed to guarantee no warnings.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
--
Ibrar Ahmed
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Noah Misch | 2011-05-27 09:00:13 | Re: switch UNLOGGED to LOGGED |
Previous Message | Jun Ishiduka | 2011-05-27 06:09:30 | Online base backup from the hot-standby |