Andres Freund <and...@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 doesnât 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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers