Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Suppress some "variable might be clobbered by longjmp" warnings.
> >> Seen with an older gcc version. I'm not sure these represent any real
> >> risk factor, but still a bit scary. Anyway we have lots of other
> >> volatile-marked variables in this code, so a couple more won't hurt.
> > I assume you saw my comment in basebackup.c:
> > * Some old compilers, e.g. gcc 2.95.3/x86, think that passing
> > * a struct in the same function as a longjump might clobber
> > * a variable. bjm 2011-02-04
> > * http://lists.apple.com/archives/xcode-users/2003/Dec//msg00051.html
> Curious that you're getting different warnings with that than I get
> with HPPA 2.95.3.
Yes. I just found the description at the URL interesting, stating the
gcc just gets confused.
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
In response to
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-03-10 19:33:18|
|Subject: pgsql: Add missing index terms for recovery control functions.|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2011-03-10 14:10:39|
|Subject: pgsql: Use '=' when documenting long options.|