Hi, On 2022-02-17 18:44:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > (that's visible now on buildfarm member caiman). We probably > should take some thought for silencing this before it starts > to be in people's faces during routine development.
Agreed. One annoying thing I recently encountered, related to this, is that our stack check fails to work with some -fsanitize* options because they end up using multiple stacks (e.g. -fsanitize-address-use-after-scope). Not sure we can really do anything about that... > Fixing this is a bit harder than one could wish because we export > set_stack_base() for use by PL/Java, so it would be better to not > change that API. I ended up with the attached patch, which works > to silence the warning so long as the new subroutine > set_stack_base_from() is marked pg_noinline. I'm a little worried > that in a year or two GCC will be smart enough to complain anyway. > If that happens, we could probably silence the warning again by > moving set_stack_base() to a different source file --- but at some > point we might have to give up and change its API, I suppose. We could try using __builtin_frame_address(0) when available, presumably gcc won't warn about that... Greetings, Andres Freund
