On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 12:29 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Jesse Zhang <sbje...@gmail.com> writes: > > either way: either changing the macro names or changing the comment. PFA > > a patch that keeps the macro names. > > Pushed, thanks. > Thanks!
> > Also in hindsight: it seems that, as suggested in the trailer typo, > > PGAC_PROG_CXX_VAR_OPT (a la the C version PGAC_PROG_CC_VAR_OPT) would be > > a good addition if we ever want to add the negative warning flags (for > > starter, Wno-unused-command-line-argument for clang++) to CXXFLAGS, but > > I assume it wasn't there in the final patch because we didn't use it > > (presumably because the patch was minimized?). Thoughts? > > I'd be inclined not to add it till we have an actual use for it. > Dead code tends to break silently. > For sure. I feel the same about dead code. I didn't make my question clear though: I'm curious what motivated the original addition of -Wno-unused-command-line-argument in commit 73b416b2e412, and how that problem did't quite manifest itself with Clang++. The commit mentioned pthread flags, but I tried taking out Wno-unused-command-line-argument from configure.in and it produces no warnings on my laptop (I know, that's a bad excuse). For context, I'm running Clang 11 on Ubuntu amd64. Cheers, Jesse
