On 2014-04-03 10:15:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 2014-04-03 09:43:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I object to the latter; you're proposing to greatly increase the warning > >> noise seen with any compiler that issues a warning for this without caring > >> about .h vs .c. For somebody who finds gcc -pedantic unusable, I would > >> think you'd have a bit more sympathy for people using other compilers. > > > Yea, but which compilers are that? The only one in the buildfarm I could > > find a couple weeks back was acc, and there's a flag we could add to the > > relevant template that silences it. I also don't think that very old > > platforms won't usually be used for active development, so a louder > > build there doesn't really have the same impact as noisy builds for > > actively developed on platforms. > > Didn't we already have this discussion last year? The main points > are all mentioned in > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ca+tgmoyjnc4b+8y01grnal52gtpbzc3zsc4sdnw4lgxhqt3...@mail.gmail.com
To which I replied: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20131224141631.gf26...@alap2.anarazel.de It really seems like an odd behaviour if a compiler behaved that way. But even if some decade+ old compiler gets this wrong: I am not going to shed many tears. We're talking about HP-UX's ac++ here. If binaries get a bit more bloated there... I really am not trying to win the inline fight here through the backdoor, I only want to make clang use inlines again. As just written in the other message, I just don't see any easy and nice way to write the autoconf test more robustly. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
