| 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 16:59:40 |
| Message-ID: | 20150115165940.GC18191@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-01-15 11:56:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2015-01-15 10:57:10 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> My recollection is that there isn't any reasonable way to get gcc to
> warn about C89 violations as such. -ansi -pedantic is not very fit
> for the purpose.
It was clang, which has -Wc99-extensions/-Wc11-extensions.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Manuel Kniep | 2015-01-15 17:09:03 | Re: segmentation fault in execTuples.c#ExecStoreVirtualTuple |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-01-15 16:56:24 | Re: s_lock.h default definitions are rather confused |