Re: s_lock.h default definitions are rather confused

On 2015-01-15 17:59:40 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> 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.

gcc-5 now has:

* A new command-line option -Wc90-c99-compat has been added to warn about
features not present in ISO C90, but present in ISO C99.
* A new command-line option -Wc99-c11-compat has been added to warn about
features not present in ISO C99, but present in ISO C11.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

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