Re: src/tools/pginclude considered harmful (was Re:

Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> > On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 14:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I would like to propose that we revert all the include-related changes
> >> of the past two days, and that src/tools/pginclude be removed from the
> >> CVS tree, until such time as it is rewritten to be much smarter about
> >> what it is doing.
>
> > Rather than reverting the changes in CVS and then redoing them
> > correctly, perhaps we could make the necessary improvements to the
> > tools, apply the improved tools to the pre-cleaned-up version of the
> > tree, get a diff against HEAD, and then apply any fixes the improved
> > tools have made as a patch. That would avoid cluttering CVS with two
> > redundant changes to almost every single source file in the tree.
>
> I've calmed down a little and am no longer wanting to insist on
> reversion. My little Perl script is turning over and has found a number
> of issues besides the original TOAST_INDEX_HACK one; some of them may
> have been there before, so I'm thinking I'm going to add it to src/tools
> rather than just treat it as a one-shot.
>
> We still have the issue of how Bruce managed to miss undeclared-function
> warnings in some files. I'm concerned that that problem may remain for
> some platforms or option combinations. Is there a way to get the
> buildfarm to highlight compiler warnings?

I am stumped too. I have gcc 2.95.3 and never saw warnings in the
syntax compile or the regular compile I use.

--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +