| From: | Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "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 21:40:03 |
| Message-ID: | e51f66da0912151340y5b619431x7822cc2359d9eecd@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/15/09, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > I have also tried in the past to pass -Werror through configure, but
> > that caused too many problems.
>
> Is it your opinion that we shouldn't bother fixing this particular
> test? I was on the fence about it myself. I don't want to promise
> that configuring with -Werror will work, now or in the future; but
> making this one test safe doesn't seem too onerous.
It's better to fail with certainty, than toggle randomly some
features on/off...
Unless autoconf guys promise that their macros are meant to work with
-Werror, it seems safer to fail. Plus there are our own macros.
How about explicit switch to turn -Werror on, safely?
--
marko
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-12-15 21:40:53 | Re: Hot Standby and prepared transactions |
| Previous Message | Marko Kreen | 2009-12-15 21:31:08 | Re: Patch: Remove gcc dependency in definition of inline functions |