Re: [HACKERS] Compiling HEAD with -Werror int 64-bit mode

2009-12-15 Thread Florian G. Pflug
On 15.12.09 23:38 , Tom Lane wrote: Peter Eisentraut writes: So to summarize, this is just a bad idea. Creating a less obscure way to use -Werror might be worthwhile, though. I suppose we could add "--with-Werror" but it seems pretty specialized to me. A more appropriate solution would allo

Re: [HACKERS] Compiling HEAD with -Werror int 64-bit mode

2009-12-15 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut writes: > So to summarize, this is just a bad idea. Creating a less obscure way > to use -Werror might be worthwhile, though. I suppose we could add "--with-Werror" but it seems pretty specialized to me. A more appropriate solution would allow the user to provide flags that get

Re: [HACKERS] Compiling HEAD with -Werror int 64-bit mode

2009-12-15 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On tis, 2009-12-15 at 16:22 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: > > I have also tried in the past to pass -Werror through configure, but > > that caused too many problems. > > Is it your opinion that we shouldn't bother fixing this particular > test? I was on the fence about it mys

Re: [HACKERS] Compiling HEAD with -Werror int 64-bit mode

2009-12-15 Thread Marko Kreen
On 12/15/09, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: > > I have also tried in the past to pass -Werror through configure, but > > that caused too many problems. > > Is it your opinion that we shouldn't bother fixing this particular > test? I was on the fence about it myself. I don't want

Re: [HACKERS] Compiling HEAD with -Werror int 64-bit mode

2009-12-15 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut writes: > I have also tried in the past to pass -Werror through configure, but > that caused too many problems. Is it your opinion that we shouldn't bother fixing this particular test? I was on the fence about it myself. I don't want to promise that configuring with -Werror wil

Re: [HACKERS] Compiling HEAD with -Werror int 64-bit mode

2009-12-15 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On tis, 2009-12-15 at 16:15 +0100, Florian G. Pflug wrote: > Alternatively - is there a way to use -Werror only for building the > actual sources, not the configure tests? I didn't find one, but my > autoconf-fu is pretty limited... I always build with pgmake='make COPT="-Werror -Wno-inline"' (T

Re: [HACKERS] Compiling HEAD with -Werror int 64-bit mode

2009-12-15 Thread Marko Kreen
On 12/15/09, Florian G. Pflug wrote: > On 15.12.09 16:02 , Tom Lane wrote: > > > "Florian G. Pflug" writes: > > > > > configure fails to recognize "long" as a working 64-bit type > > > because the does_int64_work configure test produces warning due to > > > a missing return value declaration for

Re: [HACKERS] Compiling HEAD with -Werror int 64-bit mode

2009-12-15 Thread Florian G. Pflug
On 15.12.09 16:02 , Tom Lane wrote: "Florian G. Pflug" writes: configure fails to recognize "long" as a working 64-bit type because the does_int64_work configure test produces warning due to a missing return value declaration for main() and a missing prototype for does_int64_work(). (Aain, tho

Re: [HACKERS] Compiling HEAD with -Werror int 64-bit mode

2009-12-15 Thread Tom Lane
"Florian G. Pflug" writes: > configure fails to recognize "long" as a working 64-bit type because the > does_int64_work configure test produces warning due to a missing return > value declaration for main() and a missing prototype for > does_int64_work(). (Aain, those warning are turned into error