On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 12:29 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Jesse Zhang <sbjesse@gmail.com> writes:
> > either way: either changing the macro names or changing the comment. PFA
> > a patch that keeps the macro names.
>
> Pushed, thanks.
>
Thanks!
> > Also in hindsight: it seems that, as suggested in the trailer typo,
> > PGAC_PROG_CXX_VAR_OPT (a la the C version PGAC_PROG_CC_VAR_OPT) would be
> > a good addition if we ever want to add the negative warning flags (for
> > starter, Wno-unused-command-line-argument for clang++) to CXXFLAGS, but
> > I assume it wasn't there in the final patch because we didn't use it
> > (presumably because the patch was minimized?). Thoughts?
>
> I'd be inclined not to add it till we have an actual use for it.
> Dead code tends to break silently.
>
For sure. I feel the same about dead code.
I didn't make my question clear though: I'm curious what motivated the
original addition of -Wno-unused-command-line-argument in commit
73b416b2e412, and how that problem did't quite manifest itself with Clang++.
The commit mentioned pthread flags, but I tried taking out
Wno-unused-command-line-argument from configure.in and it produces no
warnings on my laptop (I know, that's a bad excuse). For context, I'm
running Clang 11 on Ubuntu amd64.
Cheers,
Jesse
