Re: s_lock.h default definitions are rather confused

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: s_lock.h default definitions are rather confused
Date: 2015-01-15 16:07:05
Message-ID: 20150115160705.GA14782@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2015-01-15 10:57:10 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> * I've got gaur configured so it will throw "array subscript of type char"
> complaints whenever somebody forgets to cast a <ctype.h> function argument
> to unsigned char.

But, but. That would never happen to anyone (hides).

> While I'll not cry too hard when we decide to break C89 compatibility,
> I don't want it to happen accidentally; so having a pretty old-school
> compiler in the farm seems important to me.

Yea, agreed. I also don't think we want to adopt all of C99 at once, but
rather do it piecemal. Feature by feature.

I'd worked on setting up a modern gcc (or was it clang?) with the
appropriate flags to warn about !C89 stuff some time back, but failed
because of configure bugs. I think Robert has committed most of the
fixes since, and I now actually could do the rest one of these days...

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sawada Masahiko 2015-01-15 16:18:09 Re: Merging postgresql.conf and postgresql.auto.conf
Previous Message Tom Lane 2015-01-15 15:57:10 Re: s_lock.h default definitions are rather confused