Re: [HACKERS] GCC vs clang

2010-11-16 Thread Tom Lane
"Greg Sabino Mullane" writes: > Tom asked: >> What happens to plperl? > It still doesn't work. I was going to leave it out via --without-perl, > and save fixing that for another day. There's a handful of other > warnings when making, but --with-perl is the only showstopper > (once the GNU_SOUR

Re: [HACKERS] GCC vs clang

2010-11-16 Thread Greg Sabino Mullane
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Tom asked: > What happens to plperl? It still doesn't work. I was going to leave it out via --without-perl, and save fixing that for another day. There's a handful of other warnings when making, but --with-perl is the only showstopper (once

Re: [HACKERS] GCC vs clang

2010-11-16 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On tis, 2010-11-16 at 09:41 -0500, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > I've been trying to get clang working enough that I can at > least get HEAD going for a build farm client, and the attached > patch is the bare minimum to get it working. There may be a > better way to do this, but as indicated in a

Re: [HACKERS] GCC vs clang

2010-11-16 Thread Tom Lane
Greg Sabino Mullane writes: > I've been trying to get clang working enough that I can at > least get HEAD going for a build farm client, and the attached > patch is the bare minimum to get it working. There may be a > better way to do this, but as indicated in a past thread, the > GNU_SOURCE v

[HACKERS] GCC vs clang

2010-11-16 Thread Greg Sabino Mullane
I've been trying to get clang working enough that I can at least get HEAD going for a build farm client, and the attached patch is the bare minimum to get it working. There may be a better way to do this, but as indicated in a past thread, the GNU_SOURCE variable does not play nicely with clang