Re: apply pragma system_header to python headers

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: apply pragma system_header to python headers
Date: 2023-11-06 16:06:29
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 2023-11-06 Mo 09:57, Tom Lane wrote:
>> +1 for the concept --- I was just noticing yesterday that my buildfarm
>> warning scraping script is turning up some of these. However, we ought
>> to try to minimize the amount of our own code that is subject to the
>> pragma. So I think a prerequisite ought to be to get this out of
>> plpython.h:
>> /*
>> * Used throughout, so it's easier to just include it everywhere.
>> */
>> #include "plpy_util.h"
>> Alternatively, is there a way to reverse the effect of the
>> pragma after we've included what we need?

> There's "GCC diagnostic push" and "GCC diagnostic pop" but I don't know
> if they apply to "GCC system_header". Instead of using "GCC
> system_header" we could just ignore the warnings we're seeing. e.g. "GCC
> diagnostic ignored \"-Wdeclaration-after-statement\""

Probably a better way is to invent a separate header "plpython_system.h"
that just includes the Python headers, to scope the pragma precisely.
(I guess it could have the fixup #defines we're wrapping those headers
in, too.)

The same idea would work in plperl.

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2023-11-06 16:18:55 Re: Moving forward with TDE [PATCH v3]
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2023-11-06 16:04:04 Re: Moving forward with TDE [PATCH v3]