From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, mikael(dot)kjellstrom(at)gmail(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: Mixing CC and a different CLANG seems like a bad idea |
Date: | 2021-11-18 18:39:04 |
Message-ID: | 2929246.1637260744@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Yeah. I'm inclined to think we ought to just bite the bullet and fold
> CLANG/CLANGXX into the main list of compiler switch probes, so that we
> check every interesting one four times.
After studying configure's list more closely, that doesn't seem like
a great plan either. There's a lot of idiosyncrasy in the tests,
such as things that only apply to C or to C++.
More, I think (though this ought to be documented in a comment) that
the policy is to not bother turning on extra -W options in the bitcode
switches, on the grounds that warning once in the main build is enough.
I follow that idea --- but what we missed is that we still need to
turn *off* the warnings we're actively disabling. I shall go do that,
if no objections.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2021-11-18 18:50:29 | Re: Non-superuser subscription owners |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2021-11-18 18:29:26 | Re: Non-superuser subscription owners |