Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoYzR0CdRigZhnNNUvi=99q1m4+BQrzbd2BjhA_qT_-jrA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6 (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > It really doesn't. It's just fallout from indirectly including lwlock.h > which includes an atomic variable. The include path leading to it is > > In file included from /home/andres/src/postgresql/src/include/storage/lwlock.h:19:0, > from /home/andres/src/postgresql/src/include/storage/lock.h:18, > from /home/andres/src/postgresql/src/include/access/tuptoaster.h:18, > from /home/andres/src/postgresql/src/bin/pg_resetxlog/pg_resetxlog.c:49: > /home/andres/src/postgresql/src/include/port/atomics.h:41:2: error: #error "THOU SHALL NOT REQUIRE ATOMICS" > #error "THOU SHALL NOT REQUIRE ATOMICS" Isn't that #include entirely superfluous? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: