I wrote:
> Probably a better way is to invent a separate header "plpython_system.h"
> that just includes the Python headers, to scope the pragma precisely.
> (I guess it could have the fixup #defines we're wrapping those headers
> in, too.)
> The same idea would work in plperl.
After updating
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 2023-11-06 Mo 09:57, Tom Lane wrote:
>> +1 for the concept --- I was just noticing yesterday that my buildfarm
>> warning scraping script is turning up some of these. However, we ought
>> to try to minimize the amount of our own code that is subject to the
>> pragma.
On 2023-11-06 Mo 09:57, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut writes:
Analogous to 388e80132c (which was for Perl) but for Python, I propose
adding #pragma GCC system_header to plpython.h. Without it, you get
tons of warnings about -Wdeclaration-after-statement, starting with
Python 3.12. (In
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> Analogous to 388e80132c (which was for Perl) but for Python, I propose
> adding #pragma GCC system_header to plpython.h. Without it, you get
> tons of warnings about -Wdeclaration-after-statement, starting with
> Python 3.12. (In the past, I have regularly sent
On 2023-11-06 Mo 07:02, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Analogous to 388e80132c (which was for Perl) but for Python, I propose
adding #pragma GCC system_header to plpython.h. Without it, you get
tons of warnings about -Wdeclaration-after-statement, starting with
Python 3.12. (In the past, I have
Analogous to 388e80132c (which was for Perl) but for Python, I propose
adding #pragma GCC system_header to plpython.h. Without it, you get
tons of warnings about -Wdeclaration-after-statement, starting with
Python 3.12. (In the past, I have regularly sent feedback to Python to
fix their
