Re: configure can't detect proper pthread flags

From: Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Seiderer <ps(dot)report(at)gmx(dot)net>
Subject: Re: configure can't detect proper pthread flags
Date: 2015-03-20 12:43:16
Message-ID: CAMo8BfLTVQSeOUvyDfsN-KQV914xRDjHePP=Rt+V2LB9avNnuQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:01 AM, Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> We don't want every link step producing a useless warning.
>>> Ideally, "make -s" would print nothing whatsoever; to the extent that
>>> tools produce unsuppressable routine chatter, that's evil because it
>>> makes it harder to notice actually-useful warnings.
>>
>> Then maybe stderr tests should grep output for a specific option, the
>> one we're currently testing, not just any noise?
>
> That sounds awfully fragile to me. It can't really be safe to assume
> we know precisely what the warning messages will look like.

Yes, I agree, not very good.

Ok, one more attempt: maybe instead of checking that stderr is empty
we could check that stderr has changed in the presence of the option
that we test?

--
Thanks.
-- Max

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Fetter 2015-03-20 12:43:37 Re: POLA violation with \c service=
Previous Message Fabien COELHO 2015-03-20 12:43:14 Re: PATCH: pgbench - merging transaction logs