Re: Mixing CC and a different CLANG seems like a bad idea

Andres Freund writes: > On 2021-11-18 13:39:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> More, I think (though this ought to be documented in a comment) that >> the policy is to not bother turning on extra -W options in the bitcode >> switches, on the grounds that warning once in the main build is enough. >> I fo

Re: Mixing CC and a different CLANG seems like a bad idea

Hi, On 2021-11-18 16:13:50 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 3:43 PM Andres Freund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Greetings, > > > > Andres Freund > > Greetings to you too, Andres. :-) Oops I sent the email that I copied text from, rather than the one I wanted to send... Greetings,

Re: Mixing CC and a different CLANG seems like a bad idea

Hi, On 2021-11-18 13:39:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > After studying configure's list more closely, that doesn't seem like > a great plan either. There's a lot of idiosyncrasy in the tests, > such as things that only apply to C or to C++. Yea. It seems doable, but not really worth it for now. >

Re: Mixing CC and a different CLANG seems like a bad idea

On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 3:43 PM Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > Greetings, > > Andres Freund Greetings to you too, Andres. :-) -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Re: Mixing CC and a different CLANG seems like a bad idea

Hi, On 2021-11-18 12:43:15 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Yeah. I'm inclined to think we ought to just bite the bullet and fold > CLANG/CLANGXX into the main list of compiler switch probes, so that we > check every interesting one four times. That sounds fairly horrid, > but as long as you are using a

Re: Mixing CC and a different CLANG seems like a bad idea

I wrote: > Yeah. I'm inclined to think we ought to just bite the bullet and fold > CLANG/CLANGXX into the main list of compiler switch probes, so that we > check every interesting one four times. After studying configure's list more closely, that doesn't seem like a great plan either. There's a

Re: Mixing CC and a different CLANG seems like a bad idea

Andres Freund writes: > On 2021-11-18 11:56:59 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Why did we not simply insist that if you want to use --with-llvm, the >> selected compiler must be clang? I cannot see any benefit of mix-and-match >> here. > It also just seems architecturally wrong: People pressed for mak

Re: Mixing CC and a different CLANG seems like a bad idea

Hi, On 2021-11-18 11:56:59 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > I noticed that, a week after Michael pushed 9ff47ea41 to silence > -Wcompound-token-split-by-macro warnings, buildfarm member sidewinder > is still spewing them. Investigation shows that it's building with > > configure: using compiler=cc (nb4

Re: Mixing CC and a different CLANG seems like a bad idea

=?UTF-8?Q?Mikael_Kjellstr=c3=b6m?= writes: > Hm, actually it's: > CC => "ccache cc", > CXX => "ccache c++", > CLANG => "ccache clang", Right. > want me to change it to: > CC => "ccache clang", > CXX => "ccache c++", > CLANG => "ccache clang", What I actually think is we should get rid of the

Re: Mixing CC and a different CLANG seems like a bad idea

On 2021-11-18 17:56, Tom Lane wrote: I noticed that, a week after Michael pushed 9ff47ea41 to silence -Wcompound-token-split-by-macro warnings, buildfarm member sidewinder is still spewing them. Investigation shows that it's building with configure: using compiler=cc (nb4 20200810) 7.5.0 config

Mixing CC and a different CLANG seems like a bad idea

I noticed that, a week after Michael pushed 9ff47ea41 to silence -Wcompound-token-split-by-macro warnings, buildfarm member sidewinder is still spewing them. Investigation shows that it's building with configure: using compiler=cc (nb4 20200810) 7.5.0 configure: using CLANG=ccache clang and the