Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2014-04-02 15:17:16 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> We really need to get a buildfarm member going that complains about this.
>> Complain how? I find that gcc -std=c90 -pedantic emits these warnings about
>> it:
>> def.c:3:24: warning: ISO C90 doesn’t support unnamed structs/unions [-pedantic]
>> def.c:1:8: warning: struct has no named members [-pedantic]
> Last time I checked gcc builds of postgres using -pedantic are so
> verbose that warnings don't have an effect anymore. Is that not the case
> anymore?
Well, in any case, people very seldom check to see if any buildfarm
members are producing compiler warnings. You need the build to actually
go red to get anyone's attention reliably.
I concur that -pedantic is pretty much useless for our purposes anyway.
The non-C89 feature that I've been really worried about is flexible
array members (which we intend to start using more heavily, so we need
a complaint if someone leaves out the FLEXIBLE_ARRAY_MEMBER macro).
Based on the last month or so I guess that anonymous unions are a big
issue as well. I'd like to have a buildfarm member whose compiler
doesn't recognize either of those ... and AFAICT, -pedantic is no
help for the array case.
regards, tom lane
