Bruce Momjian wrote:
> bruce wrote:
>
>> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>>> This URL <http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/typedefs.pl> gives a
>>> typedef list that is (currently) the combined result from three fairly
>>> different buildfarm members:
>>>
>>> dungbeetle | 2009-03-22 06:44:01
>>> brown_bat | 2009-03-21 13:00:58
>>> dawn_bat | 2009-03-21 14:23:40
>>>
>>> These are respectively my Linux, Cygwin and MinGW buildfarm members.
>>>
>>> I don't have a BSD machine of any flavor to test on, and I don't know
>>> how to extract the typedefs on OSX.
>>>
>>> Anyone running a buildfarm member should be able to do this and add to
>>> the results, if they are up to date with release 3.2. I have my linux
>>> crontab set up to do one typedefs run on the HEAD branch each day.
>>>
>> [ Discussion deleted.]
>>
>> Andrew, this is disappointing news. When you talked about generating an
>> typedef list from the buildfarm, you were saying how great it would be
>> --- now a year later you post:
>>
>> It'd be nice to get that dealt with before we run pg_indent, but it's
>> not like we'd be any worse off than before if we don't. In any case it's
>> surely no blocker for 8.4beta.
>>
>
> My apologies; the above are Tom's words, not Andrews.
>
>
Apology accepted.
What I promised was a list that was more comprehensive than what we were
using. I think I've already delivered on that, but I would like to do
better by including some other Operating Systems: particularly some BSD
flavors. Buildfarm owners with non-Linux non-Windows members please
take note. Email me if you need help with this.
Unless we come up with some tolerably correct and maintainable code
analysis tool for identifying typedefs, using the current heuristic
methods is apparently the best we can do. Nobody has suggested even an
outline for such a tool. I don't think using the buildfarm for this
heuristic method is great, and never suggested it would be. I do think
it's an improvement, which is what I promised. I'm sorry if you find the
result disappointing.
cheers
andrew
