On 2015-01-14 09:34:23 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2015-01-13 22:19:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
A slightly more complicated change could be applied to make sure that
*all* of the CFLAGS forcibly inserted by configure appear before any
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
FWIW, if we moved the
CFLAGS=$CFLAGS $user_CFLAGS
further down, it'd have advantage that compiling with -Werror would be
more realistic. Right now doing so breaks about half of the feature
checking configure checks because of warnings. E.g. on my
On 2015-01-15 09:25:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
FWIW, if we moved the
CFLAGS=$CFLAGS $user_CFLAGS
further down, it'd have advantage that compiling with -Werror would be
more realistic. Right now doing so breaks about half of the feature
On 2015-01-14 10:01:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2015-01-14 09:34:23 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Well, that would only fix my problem if we added a configure-time test
for whether gcc recognizes z, which frankly seems like a waste of
cycles. I've
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2015-01-13 22:19:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
The reason I got interested in this is that I attempted to pass in
CFLAGS=-Wno-format to configure, to suppress format warnings on
buildfarm member gaur (whose gcc is too old to recognize z modifiers).
On 2015-01-14 09:34:23 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2015-01-13 22:19:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
The reason I got interested in this is that I attempted to pass in
CFLAGS=-Wno-format to configure, to suppress format warnings on
buildfarm member gaur
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2015-01-14 09:34:23 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Well, that would only fix my problem if we added a configure-time test
for whether gcc recognizes z, which frankly seems like a waste of
cycles. I've probably got the last one left in captivity that
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
I've already given up... Given how infrequent it is, suppressing it for
gull seems sufficient.
I'm confused --- I see no format warnings in gull's current reports.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On 2015-01-14 11:09:10 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
I've already given up... Given how infrequent it is, suppressing it for
gull seems sufficient.
I'm confused --- I see no format warnings in gull's current reports.
Sorry it was me being confused. I
Hi Tom,
On 2015-01-13 22:19:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Would anyone object to modifying configure.in like this:
if test $GCC = yes -a $ICC = no; then
- CFLAGS=$CFLAGS -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith
+ CFLAGS=-Wall $CFLAGS -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith
# These work
Would anyone object to modifying configure.in like this:
if test $GCC = yes -a $ICC = no; then
- CFLAGS=$CFLAGS -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith
+ CFLAGS=-Wall $CFLAGS -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith
# These work in some but not all gcc versions
11 matches
Mail list logo
