Re: Back branches vs. gcc 4.8.0 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Back branches vs. gcc 4.8.0
Date
Msg-id 14920.1365201904@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Back branches vs. gcc 4.8.0  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> The respective macro magic is already in place, its just not used in all
> places. The problem is more that we can't easily use it in all places
> because e.g. in the one case mentioned here the array isn't in the last
> place *in the back branches*.

I don't think we should try to back-patch such changes; there seems too
much risk of breaking third-party code because of the sizeof() issue.
But it'd be a good idea to have it in place before we find ourselves
having to do -fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations or some such even in
up-to-date branches.

(I'm actually even more worried about gcc bugs that make this type of
assumption than about intentional changes on their part.)
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Back branches vs. gcc 4.8.0
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Back branches vs. gcc 4.8.0