Re: [HACKERS] Fixing warnings in back branches?

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-12-15 09:09:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> In the end, if you're building an old branch, you should be doing it with >> old tools. > > That I don't buy for even one second. Old branches are used in up2date >

Re: [HACKERS] Fixing warnings in back branches?

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-12-14 11:00:32 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> > to compile 9.1 without warnings. -Wincompatible-pointer-types is quite >> > useful to

Re: [HACKERS] Fixing warnings in back branches?

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-12-15 08:13:06 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> > On 2015-12-14 11:00:32 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> IIUC, the main thing that causes

Re: [HACKERS] Fixing warnings in back branches?

On 2015-12-15 08:53:25 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > So... that means we can't really get rid of these warnings on 9.1, > IIUC. Well, we could fix them. Or, as proposed here, just silence that category. > I agree it would be nice to do if this were no issue, but as it > is I'm inclined to think

Re: [HACKERS] Fixing warnings in back branches?

On 2015-12-14 11:00:32 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > to compile 9.1 without warnings. -Wincompatible-pointer-types is quite > > useful to detect problems. The rest indeed is pretty 'Meh'. > > IIUC, the main thing that

Re: [HACKERS] Fixing warnings in back branches?

On 2015-12-15 08:13:06 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2015-12-14 11:00:32 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > >> IIUC, the main thing that causes incompatible pointer type warnings on > >> 9.1 is the conflation of FILE with

Re: [HACKERS] Fixing warnings in back branches?

Andres Freund writes: > I think that's an ok one-off policy. But looking back it was pretty much > always the case that the release -3 or so started to look pretty > horrible, warning wise. I think that's a condition of life. The compilers are moving targets, no matter that

Re: [HACKERS] Fixing warnings in back branches?

On 2015-12-15 09:09:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > In the end, if you're building an old branch, you should be doing it with > old tools. That I don't buy for even one second. Old branches are used in up2date environments in production. Absolutely regularly. apt.pg.o, yum.pg.o et al do provide them

Re: [HACKERS] Fixing warnings in back branches?

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 11:04:07AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2015-12-15 09:09:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> In the end, if you're building an old branch, you should be doing it with > >> old tools. I grant that's

[HACKERS] Fixing warnings in back branches?

Hi, While newer branches are at the moment mostly free of warnings for me, the picture is entirely different in the older back branches, especially 9.1. That has several hundred lines of warnings. I personally am not bothered by a handful of spurious warnings in the back branches, but at this

Re: [HACKERS] Fixing warnings in back branches?

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > I personally am not bothered by a handful of spurious warnings in the > back branches, but at this point you're very unlikely to see a new > warning introduced into 9.1 while backpatching. These are new warnings older

Re: [HACKERS] Fixing warnings in back branches?

On 2015-12-14 10:55:05 +, Greg Stark wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > I personally am not bothered by a handful of spurious warnings in the > > back branches, but at this point you're very unlikely to see a new > > warning introduced into

Re: [HACKERS] Fixing warnings in back branches?

On 2015-12-14 09:43:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2015-12-14 10:55:05 +, Greg Stark wrote: > >> Perhaps just adding some -Wno-* flags would make more sense than > >> changing code and possibly introducing bugs. > > > I think that's a

Re: [HACKERS] Fixing warnings in back branches?

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-12-14 09:43:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Andres Freund writes: >> > On 2015-12-14 10:55:05 +, Greg Stark wrote: >> >> Perhaps just adding some -Wno-* flags would make more sense than >>

Re: [HACKERS] Fixing warnings in back branches?

Andres Freund writes: > On 2015-12-14 10:55:05 +, Greg Stark wrote: >> Perhaps just adding some -Wno-* flags would make more sense than >> changing code and possibly introducing bugs. > I think that's a case-by-case decision. Just verbatimly backpatching > something that