Re: s_lock.h default definitions are rather confused

On 2015-01-15 11:56:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2015-01-15 10:57:10 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> While I'll not cry too hard when we decide to break C89 compatibility,
> >> I don't want it to happen accidentally; so having a pretty old-school
> >> compiler in the farm seems important to me.
> 
> > I'd worked on setting up a modern gcc (or was it clang?) with the
> > appropriate flags to warn about !C89 stuff some time back, but failed
> > because of configure bugs.
> 
> My recollection is that there isn't any reasonable way to get gcc to
> warn about C89 violations as such.  -ansi -pedantic is not very fit
> for the purpose.

It was clang, which has -Wc99-extensions/-Wc11-extensions.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- Andres Freund                       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services