From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: compile warnings in CVS |
Date: | 2002-08-17 20:11:19 |
Message-ID: | 5359.1029615079@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> writes:
> pg_controldata.c: In function `main':
> pg_controldata.c:91: warning: `%c' yields only last 2 digits of year in some locales
> pg_controldata.c:93: warning: `%c' yields only last 2 digits of year in some locales
Yeah. I was willing to ignore that while pg_controldata was in contrib,
but it's much more annoying when it's in the main tree. Anyone know if
gcc has a --not-quite-so-nannyish warnings mode?
IMHO %c is a perfectly reasonable format choice --- the strftime man
page defines it as
%c Locale's appropriate date and time representation.
While we could go over to some %Y-%M-etc-etc notation, that doesn't
strike me as a step forward. pg_controldata's output should be
conveniently human-readable IMHO, and that means following local
conventions.
Another alternative is
char *fmt = "%c";
...
strftime(..., fmt, ...);
which I think will probably defeat gcc's check (haven't tried it
though).
Does anyone want to argue that %c is actually a bad choice? I think
gcc's just being unreasonable here, but maybe I'm missing something
(and no, Y2K arguments won't change my mind).
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2002-08-17 20:57:40 | Remove implicit unique index creation on SERIAL columns? |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2002-08-17 19:51:40 | Re: compile warnings in CVS |