| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Enable -Wstrict-prototypes and -Wold-style-definition by default |
| Date: | 2026-03-27 07:38:45 |
| Message-ID: | ff1b26a3-7f36-474a-93f1-bb9afcc7cf87@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
The first three patches have been committed.
On 24.03.26 08:16, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> 0004:
>
> --- a/meson.build
> +++ b/meson.build
> @@ -2199,6 +2199,7 @@ unroll_loops_cflags = cc.get_supported_arguments(['-funroll-loops'])
>
> common_warning_flags = [
> '-Wmissing-prototypes',
> + '-Wold-style-declaration',
>
> Nit, what about adding it with (as the comment is also accurate for the new one)?
>
> "
> # These are C-only flags, supported in all C11-capable GCC/Clang versions.
> cflags_warn += cc.get_supported_arguments(['-Wstrict-prototypes', '-Wold-style-definition'])
> "
Yeah, makes sense to collect the C-only flags together. But now that
I'm looking at this again, the comment "supported in all C11-capable
GCC/Clang versions" is not relevant here, it was only relevant in
configure.ac because there we don't actually test for these flags but
require them without testing. What do you think about the attached
patch, which reorganizes this a bit more?
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v3-0001-Add-warning-option-Wold-style-declaration.patch | text/plain | 4.4 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yasuo Honda | 2026-03-27 07:41:36 | Re: [PATCH] Fix unexpected loss of DEFERRABLE property after toggling NOT ENFORCED / ENFORCED |
| Previous Message | Yugo Nagata | 2026-03-27 07:35:49 | Re: Track skipped tables during autovacuum and autoanalyze |