From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: perl 5.36, C99, -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wshadow=compatible-local |
Date: | 2022-11-02 23:43:46 |
Message-ID: | 20221102234346.zcupk5mqysavci4t@awork3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2022-11-01 17:00:27 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 01.11.22 19:01, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I don't know how much longer we can rely on headers being
> > -Wdeclaration-after-statement clean, my impression is that people don't have a
> > lot of patience for C89isms anymore.
>
> > I wonder if we should try to use -isystem for a bunch of external
> > dependencies. That way we can keep the more aggressive warnings with a lower
> > likelihood of conflicting with stuff outside of our control.
>
> Python has the same issues. There are a few other Python-embedding projects
> that use -Wdeclaration-after-statement and complain if the Python headers
> violate it. But it's getting tedious. -isystem would be a better solution.
Which dependencies should we convert to -isystem? And I assume we should do so
with meson and autoconf? It's easy with meson, it provides a function to
change a dependency to use -isystem without knowing how the compiler spells
that. I guess with autoconf we'd have to check if the compiler understands
-isystem?
The other alternative would be to drop -Wdeclaration-after-statement :)
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-11-02 23:57:45 | Re: perl 5.36, C99, -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wshadow=compatible-local |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-11-02 23:22:16 | Re: spinlock support on loongarch64 |