| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Suppress some "variable might be clobbered by longjmp" warnings. |
| Date: | 2011-03-10 15:22:16 |
| Message-ID: | 201103101522.p2AFMGU22439@momjian.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers |
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
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-03-10 19:33:18 | pgsql: Add missing index terms for recovery control functions. |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-03-10 14:10:39 | pgsql: Use '=' when documenting long options. |