Re: "errno" not set in case of "libm" functions (HPUX)

From: Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: "errno" not set in case of "libm" functions (HPUX)
Date: 2011-05-27 08:15:13
Message-ID: BANLkTi=yvHN1OeM9KP7U_r0Qp4SkjReCnQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > On tor, 2011-05-26 at 12:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I tried this on my HP-UX 10.20 box, and it didn't work very nicely:
> >> configure decided that the compiler accepted +Olibmerrno, so I got a
> >> compile full of
> >> cc: warning 450: Unrecognized option +Olibmerrno.
> >> warnings. The reason is that PGAC_PROG_CC_CFLAGS_OPT does not pay any
> >> attention to whether the proposed flag generates a warning. That seems
> >> like a bug --- is there any situation where we'd want to accept a flag
> >> that does generate a warning? I'm thinking that macro should set
> >> ac_c_werror_flag=yes, the same way PGAC_C_INLINE does.
>
> > I think so.
>
> OK, committed with that addition.
>
> Thanks,

Is it worth to backport this?

> > We could also do that globally, but that would probably be something for
> > the next release.
>
> Hmm. I'm a bit scared of how much might break. I don't think the
> autoconf tests are generally designed to guarantee no warnings.
>
> regards, tom lane
>

--
Ibrar Ahmed

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2011-05-27 09:00:13 Re: switch UNLOGGED to LOGGED
Previous Message Jun Ishiduka 2011-05-27 06:09:30 Online base backup from the hot-standby