Re: [HACKERS] Subtle bug in autoconf flex version test

Daniel Gustafsson writes: >> On 02 May 2016, at 15:38, Tom Lane wrote: >> Hm, is that a popular flex version? I wonder whether we will get >> complaints if we start warning about it. > Sorry, I missed half the sentence there. What I meant was that I can

Re: [HACKERS] Subtle bug in autoconf flex version test

> On 02 May 2016, at 15:38, Tom Lane wrote: > > Daniel Gustafsson writes: >> The PGAC_PATH_FLEX version test in config/programs.m4 tests the major and >> minor >> versions with = rather than == which unless I’m missing something is >> performing >>

Re: [HACKERS] Subtle bug in autoconf flex version test

Daniel Gustafsson writes: > The PGAC_PATH_FLEX version test in config/programs.m4 tests the major and > minor > versions with = rather than == which unless I’m missing something is > performing > assignment rather than testing equality? Huh. That's been broken since forever

[HACKERS] Subtle bug in autoconf flex version test

The PGAC_PATH_FLEX version test in config/programs.m4 tests the major and minor versions with = rather than == which unless I’m missing something is performing assignment rather than testing equality? The attached diff makes the test trigger the expected warning on major/minor version on my OS X