Re: pg_recvlogical.c doesn't build with --disable-integer-datetimes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Subject: Re: pg_recvlogical.c doesn't build with --disable-integer-datetimes
Date: 2017-02-17 21:31:57
Message-ID: 25938.1487367117@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> if test "$GCC" = yes -a "$ICC" = no; then
> CFLAGS="-Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith"
> + PGAC_PROG_CC_CFLAGS_OPT([-Wempty-body])
> + PGAC_PROG_CC_CFLAGS_OPT([-Wignored-qualifiers])
> + PGAC_PROG_CC_CFLAGS_OPT([-Wimplicit-fallthrough])
> + PGAC_PROG_CC_CFLAGS_OPT([-Wtype-limits])
> + PGAC_PROG_CC_CFLAGS_OPT([-Wuninitialized])
> + PGAC_PROG_CC_CFLAGS_OPT([-Wshift-negative-value])
> + PGAC_PROG_CC_CFLAGS_OPT([-Wmissing-include-dirs])
> + PGAC_PROG_CC_CFLAGS_OPT([-Wshift-overflow])
> + PGAC_PROG_CC_CFLAGS_OPT([-Wswitch-default])
> + PGAC_PROG_CC_CFLAGS_OPT([-Wdangling-else])
> + PGAC_PROG_CC_CFLAGS_OPT([-Waggregate-return])
> + PGAC_PROG_CC_CFLAGS_OPT([-Wstrict-prototypes])
> + PGAC_PROG_CC_CFLAGS_OPT([-Wmissing-declarations])
> + PGAC_PROG_CC_CFLAGS_OPT([-Wredundant-decls])
> + PGAC_PROG_CC_CFLAGS_OPT([-Winline])
> + PGAC_PROG_CC_CFLAGS_OPT([-Woverlength-strings])
> + PGAC_PROG_CC_CFLAGS_OPT([-Wc++-compat])
> + PGAC_PROG_CC_CFLAGS_OPT([-Wold-style-definition])
> # These work in some but not all gcc versions
> PGAC_PROG_CC_CFLAGS_OPT([-Wdeclaration-after-statement])
> PGAC_PROG_CC_CFLAGS_OPT([-Wendif-labels])

I'm not terribly for that. For the most part, if a gcc warning isn't
included by '-Wall', there's a reason for it. We could talk about
whether individual extra warnings are useful for the Postgres project,
but I don't want to suddenly move the goalposts to where we are
enforcing a bunch of pedantic warnings that different compiler versions
might not even interpret the same. I'm particularly not for turning
them up in the way you suggest here, where violations would result in
buildfarm failures on machines running with -Werror.

Right now I'd rather focus on getting to where we can have -Werror on in
the buildfarm at all. longfin says we've got work to do on that, at least
in the back branches. It may be that we can't expect near-EOL branches to
always compile perfectly cleanly on newer compilers.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-02-17 22:19:12 Re: SUBSCRIPTIONS and pg_upgrade
Previous Message Andres Freund 2017-02-17 21:18:19 Re: pg_recvlogical.c doesn't build with --disable-integer-datetimes