Re: Mixing CC and a different CLANG seems like a bad idea

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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