Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: additional GCC warning flags

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>,Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: additional GCC warning flags
Date: 2004-10-19 17:40:56
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
Neil Conway wrote:
> Attached is a revised patch. Changes:

Another word from the wise: Never write "recent" in code designed for 
longevity. :)

> BTW, since we're on the topic of compiler options, is there a reason
> we don't use -g3 with GCC when --enable-debug is specified? It seems
> worth using to me.

I'm sure we could discuss dozens of compiler options.  Don't even start 
on the -march ones.  I think in the interest of compatibility with the 
rest of the world we should stick with the basic levels of 
optimization, debugging, and warning that make most people reasonably 
happy and let the users worry about the rest in their own time.  I'm 
already not so happy about the new warning options, because they make 
the compile lines too long.  How's that for an argument? ;-)

Peter Eisentraut

In response to


pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2004-10-19 18:07:24
Subject: Re: additional GCC warning flags
Previous:From: Fabien COELHODate: 2004-10-19 16:33:13
Subject: Re: pg_regress --temp-keep

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group