From: | Pavel Golub <pavel(at)microolap(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Pavel Golub <pavel(at)microolap(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: Warning compiling pg_dump (MinGW, Windows XP) |
Date: | 2011-01-18 09:40:26 |
Message-ID: | 462853531.20110118114026@gf.microolap.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello, Andrew.
You wrote:
AD> On 01/17/2011 03:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan<andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>>> On 01/17/2011 07:18 AM, Pavel Golub wrote:
>>>> So you think I should just ignore these warnings? Because I can't
>>>> remember the same behaviour on 8.x branches...
>>> We've had them all along, as I said. See
>>> <http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_stage_log.pl?nm=frogmouth&dt=2011-01-04%2023%3A54%3A16&stg=make>
>>> for the same thing in an 8.2 build.
>> I wonder why mingw's gcc is complaining about %m when other versions of
>> gcc do not? If you can't get it to shut up about that, there's not
>> going to be much percentage in silencing warnings about %lld.
>>
>>
AD> We could add -Wno-format to the flags. That makes it shut up, but maybe
AD> we don't want to use such a sledgehammer.
I want to understand the only thing. Are these warnings really
dangerous? Or I should just ignore them?
AD> cheers
AD> andrew
--
With best wishes,
Pavel mailto:pavel(at)gf(dot)microolap(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2011-01-18 09:42:16 | Re: REVIEW: Extensions support for pg_dump |
Previous Message | Pavel Golub | 2011-01-18 09:37:55 | Re: Warning compiling pg_dump (MinGW, Windows XP) |