Re: Compiling HEAD with -Werror int 64-bit mode

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Postgresql-Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Compiling HEAD with -Werror int 64-bit mode
Date: 2009-12-15 22:38:43
Message-ID: 15704.1260916723@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> So to summarize, this is just a bad idea. Creating a less obscure way
> to use -Werror might be worthwhile, though.

I suppose we could add "--with-Werror" but it seems pretty specialized
to me. A more appropriate solution would allow the user to provide
flags that get added to CFLAGS only after we do all the configure tests
(implying that it's on the user's head that these flags are right and
don't break anything, but then again that's pretty much true of up-front
CFLAGS too). And that basically describes COPTS ... the only thing
lacking is documentation.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Bailey 2009-12-15 22:39:18 Re: Range types
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-12-15 22:27:21 Re: Range types