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 the most risk-averse
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
> environments in production.
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 f
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 they allegedly implem
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 we
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 incompatible pointer type warnings on
>> >
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 gzFile in pg_dump and
>
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 detect problems. The rest indeed is pretty
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 causes incompatible poi
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
>> >> changing code and possibly introducing
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 case-by-case decision. Just verb
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 stewed in master for
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 9.1 while backpatchi
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 compilers didn't detec
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 poi
15 matches
Mail list logo