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 14:44:17
Message-ID: CA+TgmoawAEMjnh1VM5avxykQd92hX7buqsiygEVA8cn+jz=avA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2015-08-06 10:29:39 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Which one?

Never mind, I'm confused.

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Erik Rijkers 2015-08-06 14:45:28 Re: Performance improvement for joins where outer side is unique
Previous Message Andres Freund 2015-08-06 14:41:45 Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6