Re: Convert varatt.h macros to static inline functions

On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 3:07 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 2:39 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >
> > Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> writes:
> > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 1:59 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > >> Maybe there's some strange cross-distro difference here, but
> > >> what I'm wondering is if there's a difference in CFLAGS.
> > >> My build used
> > >>
> > >> CFLAGS = -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Werror=vla -Wendif-labels
-Wmissing-format-attribute-Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 -Wcast-function-type -Wshadow=compatible-local -Wformat-security
-Wmissing-variable-declarations-fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv -fexcess-precision=standard -Wno-format-truncation
-Wno-stringop-truncation-g -O2 
> >
> > > Yeah, interestingly I didn't see the warning with CFLAGS your build
> > > used but got it if I use -O0 instead of -O2.
> >
> > I checked the buildfarm, and (so far) adder and flaviventris have
> > shown this warning, but nothing else has.  adder is using gcc 14.2.0
> > with -O0, while flaviventris is using gcc 16.0.0 with -O0.
>
> Indeed. Thank you for checking.
>
> >  Also
> > I tried -O0 with gcc 15.1.1 on my Fedora 42 box, and now it shows the
> > warning.  So maybe the difference is just -O0?  But I think there are
> > other buildfarm animals using that, so I'm not certain we've explained
> > the difference fully.
> >
> > Anyway, based on that I think there's enough reason to go ahead
> > with your patch.
>
> Agreed. I've attached the patch. I'll push it, barring comments.
>

Pushed.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com