On 09.08.23 17:29, Tristan Partin wrote:
On Wed Aug 9, 2023 at 10:02 AM CDT, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 09.08.23 10:07, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 08.08.23 17:14, Tristan Partin wrote:
>>> I was able to reproduce the warning now on Fedora. I agree with
the >>> patch
>>>
>>> -
On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 8:57 AM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 10:29:56AM -0500, Tristan Partin wrote:
> > On Wed Aug 9, 2023 at 10:02 AM CDT, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > >
> > > This patch has apparently upset one buildfarm member with a very old
> > > compiler:
> > >
>
On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 10:29:56AM -0500, Tristan Partin wrote:
> On Wed Aug 9, 2023 at 10:02 AM CDT, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >
> > This patch has apparently upset one buildfarm member with a very old
> > compiler:
> > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_history.pl?nm=lapwing=HEAD
> >
On Wed Aug 9, 2023 at 10:02 AM CDT, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 09.08.23 10:07, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 08.08.23 17:14, Tristan Partin wrote:
>>> I was able to reproduce the warning now on Fedora. I agree with the
>>> patch
>>>
>>> - PgBenchValue vargs[MAX_FARGS];
>>> +
On 09.08.23 10:07, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 08.08.23 17:14, Tristan Partin wrote:
I was able to reproduce the warning now on Fedora. I agree with the
patch
- PgBenchValue vargs[MAX_FARGS];
+ PgBenchValue vargs[MAX_FARGS] = { 0 };
I suggest to also do
typedef enum
{
-
On 08.08.23 17:14, Tristan Partin wrote:
I was able to reproduce the warning now on Fedora. I agree with the
patch
- PgBenchValue vargs[MAX_FARGS];
+ PgBenchValue vargs[MAX_FARGS] = { 0 };
I suggest to also do
typedef enum
{
- PGBT_NO_VALUE,
+ PGBT_NO_VALUE = 0,
On Tue Aug 8, 2023 at 5:20 AM CDT, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 19.07.23 19:15, Tristan Partin wrote:
> On Sun Jul 9, 2023 at 2:23 AM CDT, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 06.07.23 15:41, Tristan Partin wrote:
>> > On Thu Jul 6, 2023 at 3:21 AM CDT, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> >> On 05.07.23 23:06,
On 19.07.23 19:15, Tristan Partin wrote:
On Sun Jul 9, 2023 at 2:23 AM CDT, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 06.07.23 15:41, Tristan Partin wrote:
> On Thu Jul 6, 2023 at 3:21 AM CDT, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 05.07.23 23:06, Tristan Partin wrote:
>>> Thanks for following up. My system is Fedora
On Sun Jul 9, 2023 at 2:23 AM CDT, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 06.07.23 15:41, Tristan Partin wrote:
> On Thu Jul 6, 2023 at 3:21 AM CDT, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 05.07.23 23:06, Tristan Partin wrote:
>>> Thanks for following up. My system is Fedora 38. I can confirm this is
>>> still
On 06.07.23 15:41, Tristan Partin wrote:
On Thu Jul 6, 2023 at 3:21 AM CDT, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 05.07.23 23:06, Tristan Partin wrote:
Thanks for following up. My system is Fedora 38. I can confirm this is
still happening on master.
$ gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 13.1.1 20230614 (Red Hat
Hi,
On 2023-07-06 10:21:44 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 05.07.23 23:06, Tristan Partin wrote:
> > Thanks for following up. My system is Fedora 38. I can confirm this is
> > still happening on master.
> >
> > $ gcc --version
> > gcc (GCC) 13.1.1 20230614 (Red Hat 13.1.1-4)
> > Copyright
On Thu Jul 6, 2023 at 3:21 AM CDT, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 05.07.23 23:06, Tristan Partin wrote:
> > Thanks for following up. My system is Fedora 38. I can confirm this is
> > still happening on master.
> >
> > $ gcc --version
> > gcc (GCC) 13.1.1 20230614 (Red Hat 13.1.1-4)
> > Copyright
On 05.07.23 23:06, Tristan Partin wrote:
Thanks for following up. My system is Fedora 38. I can confirm this is
still happening on master.
$ gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 13.1.1 20230614 (Red Hat 13.1.1-4)
Copyright (C) 2023 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for
On Mon Jul 3, 2023 at 1:19 AM CDT, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 07.06.23 16:31, Tristan Partin wrote:
> > This patch is really not necessary from a functional point of view. It
> > is only necessary if we want to silence a compiler warning.
> >
> > Tested on `gcc (GCC) 13.1.1 20230511 (Red Hat
On 07.06.23 16:31, Tristan Partin wrote:
This patch is really not necessary from a functional point of view. It
is only necessary if we want to silence a compiler warning.
Tested on `gcc (GCC) 13.1.1 20230511 (Red Hat 13.1.1-2)`.
After silencing this warning, all I am left with (given my build
On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 7:31 AM Tristan Partin wrote:
>
> This patch is really not necessary from a functional point of view. It
> is only necessary if we want to silence a compiler warning.
>
> Tested on `gcc (GCC) 13.1.1 20230511 (Red Hat 13.1.1-2)`.
...
> From my perspective, this warning
This patch is really not necessary from a functional point of view. It
is only necessary if we want to silence a compiler warning.
Tested on `gcc (GCC) 13.1.1 20230511 (Red Hat 13.1.1-2)`.
After silencing this warning, all I am left with (given my build
configuration) is:
[1667/2280] Compiling
17 matches
Mail list logo
