Re: perl 5.36, C99, -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wshadow=compatible-local
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: perl 5.36, C99, -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wshadow=compatible-local |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 586729.1672339897@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: perl 5.36, C99, -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wshadow=compatible-local (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: perl 5.36, C99, -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wshadow=compatible-local
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > It turns out to not work terribly well. gcc, quite reasonably, warns about the > pragma used in .c files, and there's no easy way that I found to have autoconf > name its test .h. We could include a test header in the compile test, but that > also adds some complication. As gcc has supported the pragma since 2000, I > think a simple > #ifdef __GNUC__ > #define HAVE_PRAGMA_SYSTEM_HEADER 1 > #endif > should suffice. We might find that some GCC-impostor compilers have trouble with it, but if so we can adjust the #ifdef here. Getting nitpicky, I suggest calling it "HAVE_PRAGMA_GCC_SYSTEM_HEADER" to align better with what you actually have to write. Also: + * Newer versions the perl headers trigger a lot of warnings with our compiler "Newer versions of ..." please. Otherwise LGTM. > Should we backpatch this? Given the volume of warnings it's probably a good > idea. But I'd let it step in HEAD for a few days of buildfarm coverage first. +1 to both points. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: