Re: [HACKERS] Re: Peter opens a can of worms

Boy, those worms were just waiting to come out ...

On 2000-01-13, Tom Lane mentioned:

> I wrote:
> > Cool. Now who's going to fix the cartload of warnings this has
> > produced? I'm counting about 125 of them.

All fixed. (good count by the way ;)

>
> On further investigation, it seems that some of these warnings are
> real portability issues (pointers being printed as ints, etc).

Actually about a quarter of these were definitely problems, with a handful
of rather serious bugs (depends on how serious this can become, of
course).

> But a very considerable fraction are bogus. gcc doesn't know about

Actually going through them there were certainly a few harmless ones (such
as too many arguments), but exactly zero were completely bogus. Especially
too many arguments might point out a typo.

> elog's "%m" extension to the standard %-format set, and it seems to
> be assuming that there should be a parameter to go with the %m.

%m is a GNU extension (so they claim). (And even if it weren't, there's a
way to "register" non-standard format conversions.)

> I have a feeling we will have to revert this change...

I'd ask you to reconsider. Especially with the multitude of typdefs we
have you never know for sure what format to use. As I said, a number of
these warnings actually had a good cause.

--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden