On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pe...@2ndquadrant.com> >> wrote: >>> Yes, I know that these only appeared in GCC 4.6+ and as such are a >>> relatively recent phenomenon, but there has been some effort to >>> eliminate them, and if I could get a non-hacked -Werror build I'd feel >>> happy enough about excluding them as already outlined. > >> I just do this: >> echo COPT=-Werror > src/Makefile.custom >> ...which seems to work reasonably well. > > I see no point in -Werror whatsoever. If you aren't examining the make > output for warnings, you're not following proper development practice > IMO.
I find -Werror to be a convenient way to examine the output for warnings. Otherwise they scroll off the screen. Yeah, I could save the output to a file and grep it afterwards, but that seems less convenient. I'm clearly not the only one doing it this way, since src/backend/parser/gram.o manually sticks in -Wno-error... > gcc is not the only tool we use in the build process, so if you > are relying on -Werror to call attention to everything you should be > worrying about, you lost already. Hmm, I guess. I've never had a problem with anything else that I can remember, though. > I'm also less than thrilled with the idea that whatever the gcc boys > decide to make a warning tomorrow will automatically become a MUST FIX > NOW for us. I'm not thrilled about that either. Especially since they seem to be adding more and more warnings that are harder and harder to work around for issues that are less and less important. Unimportant warnings that are easily avoidable are not so bad, but... -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
