Re: [HACKERS] GCC 6 warning fixes

2016-03-08 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 3/8/16 4:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Thomas Munro > wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> Here are three patches to fix new warnings in GCC 6. >>> >>> 0001 is apparently a typo.

Re: [HACKERS] GCC 6 warning fixes

2016-03-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> Here are three patches to fix new warnings in GCC 6. >> >> 0001 is apparently a typo. > > Right, looks like it. Builds and tests OK

Re: [HACKERS] GCC 6 warning fixes

2016-02-29 Thread Thomas Munro
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Here are three patches to fix new warnings in GCC 6. > > 0001 is apparently a typo. Right, looks like it. Builds and tests OK with this change (though I didn't get any warning from GCC6.0.0 -Wall for this one). > 0002

[HACKERS] GCC 6 warning fixes

2016-02-19 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Here are three patches to fix new warnings in GCC 6. 0001 is apparently a typo. 0002 was just (my?) stupid code to begin with. 0003 is more of a workaround. There could be other ways address this, too. From 1e5bf0bdcd86b807d881ea82245275389083ec75 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter