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.
>>
>> Right, looks like it. Builds and tests OK w
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 with this change (though I
> didn't get any warni
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 was just (my?) stu
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 Eisentraut