Re: Bison 3.0 updates

Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2013-07-29 07:11:13 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>>> The bottom line was:
>>> It looks like our choices are (1) teach configure to enable
>>> -fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations if the compiler recognizes it,
>>> or (2) back-port commit 8137f2c32322c624e0431fac1621e8e9315202f9.
>>>
>>> I am in favor of fixing the back branches via (1), because it's less
>>> work and much less likely to break third-party extensions. Some other
>>> people argued for (2), but I've not seen any patch emerge from them,
>>> and you can bet I'm not going to do it.

>> Yea, just passing -fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations seems like the
>> safest and best option to me also..

> I think we need to do both. There very well might be other optimizations
> made based on the unreachability information.

If we turn off the optimization, that will fix any other cases as well,
no? So why would we risk breaking third-party code by back-porting the
struct declaration changes?

regards, tom lane