I wrote:
> It occurs to me that we should now be able to drop configure's
> probe for -Wno-compound-token-split-by-macro, since that was only
> needed to suppress warnings in the Perl headers.
... or not. A bit of experimentation says that they still come out,
apparently because the warnings are
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2023-01-02 15:46:36 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I haven't seen any problems in HEAD, so I'm working on backpatching.
> And done.
It occurs to me that we should now be able to drop configure's
probe for -Wno-compound-token-split-by-macro, since that was only
needed
On 2023-01-02 15:46:36 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2022-12-29 13:40:13 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > Should we backpatch this? Given the volume of warnings it's probably a
> > > > good
> > > > idea. But I'd let it step in HEAD for a few days of buildfarm coverage
> > > > first.
> > >
Hi,
On 2022-12-29 13:40:13 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > Should we backpatch this? Given the volume of warnings it's probably a
> > > good
> > > idea. But I'd let it step in HEAD for a few days of buildfarm coverage
> > > first.
> >
> > +1 to both points.
>
> Pushed to HEAD.
I haven't
Hi,
On 2022-12-29 13:51:37 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> We might find that some GCC-impostor compilers have trouble with it,
> but if so we can adjust the #ifdef here.
Yea. I suspect it's widely enough used that any compiler claiming to be gcc
compatible has it, but ...
> Getting nitpicky, I
Andres Freund writes:
> It turns out to not work terribly well. gcc, quite reasonably, warns about the
> pragma used in .c files, and there's no easy way that I found to have autoconf
> name its test .h. We could include a test header in the compile test, but that
> also adds some complication.
Hi,
On 2022-12-28 19:05:35 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2022-12-28 13:43:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Hmm ... I guess the buildfarm would tell us whether that detection works
> >> correctly on platforms where it matters. Let's keep it simple if we
> >> can.
>
> >
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2022-12-28 13:43:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm ... I guess the buildfarm would tell us whether that detection works
>> correctly on platforms where it matters. Let's keep it simple if we
>> can.
> Quick clarification question: Are you suggesting to use #ifdef
On 2022-12-28 13:43:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > In the compiler test, I chose to not check whether -Werror=unknown-pragmas
> > is
> > supported - it appears to be an old gcc flag, and the worst outcome is that
> > HAVE_PRAGMA_SYSTEM_HEADER isn't defined.
> > We could alternatively define
Andres Freund writes:
> The attached *prototype* patch is a slightly different spin on the idea of
> using -isystem: It adds a
> #pragma GCC system_header
> to plperl.h if supported by the compiler. That also avoids warnings from
> within plperl and subsidiary headers.
> I don't really have an
Hi,
On 2022-11-02 17:03:34 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2022-11-02 19:57:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund writes:
> > > On 2022-11-01 17:00:27 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > >> Python has the same issues. There are a few other Python-embedding
> > >> projects
> > >> that use
Hi,
On 2022-11-02 19:57:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2022-11-01 17:00:27 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> Python has the same issues. There are a few other Python-embedding
> >> projects
> >> that use -Wdeclaration-after-statement and complain if the Python
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2022-11-01 17:00:27 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Python has the same issues. There are a few other Python-embedding projects
>> that use -Wdeclaration-after-statement and complain if the Python headers
>> violate it. But it's getting tedious. -isystem would be a
Hi,
On 2022-11-01 17:00:27 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 01.11.22 19:01, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I don't know how much longer we can rely on headers being
> > -Wdeclaration-after-statement clean, my impression is that people don't
> > have a
> > lot of patience for C89isms anymore.
>
> >
On 01.11.22 19:01, Andres Freund wrote:
I don't know how much longer we can rely on headers being
-Wdeclaration-after-statement clean, my impression is that people don't have a
lot of patience for C89isms anymore.
I wonder if we should try to use -isystem for a bunch of external
dependencies.
Andres Freund writes:
> Hi,
>
> Tom pinged me privately because mylodon, an animal enforcing C89/C99
> compatibility, was failed. This is due to perl on the machine being upgraded
> to perl 5.36.
>
> Mylodon was failing because of:
>
> configure:18839: ccache clang-13 -c -Wall
Hi,
Tom pinged me privately because mylodon, an animal enforcing C89/C99
compatibility, was failed. This is due to perl on the machine being upgraded
to perl 5.36.
Mylodon was failing because of:
configure:18839: ccache clang-13 -c -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith
17 matches
Mail list logo
