Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6
Date: 2015-08-06 14:29:39
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYzR0CdRigZhnNNUvi=99q1m4+BQrzbd2BjhA_qT_-jrA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> It really doesn't. It's just fallout from indirectly including lwlock.h
> which includes an atomic variable. The include path leading to it is
>
> In file included from /home/andres/src/postgresql/src/include/storage/lwlock.h:19:0,
> from /home/andres/src/postgresql/src/include/storage/lock.h:18,
> from /home/andres/src/postgresql/src/include/access/tuptoaster.h:18,
> from /home/andres/src/postgresql/src/bin/pg_resetxlog/pg_resetxlog.c:49:
> /home/andres/src/postgresql/src/include/port/atomics.h:41:2: error: #error "THOU SHALL NOT REQUIRE ATOMICS"
> #error "THOU SHALL NOT REQUIRE ATOMICS"

Isn't that #include entirely superfluous?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2015-08-06 14:31:53 Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6
Previous Message Tom Lane 2015-08-06 14:27:52 Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6