On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 1:59 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 11:34 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Interesting. I did not see such warnings with gcc 14.3.1, 15.1.1, > >> nor older gcc versions. Must be something peculiar to 14.2. > > > Hmm, I got the same warning with 14.3.1 (exact version shown below) so > > probably something is strange on my end: > > > % gcc --version > > gcc (GCC) 14.3.1 20250805 > > That's even more interesting. The specific late-model gcc versions > I checked were from Fedora 41: > > $ gcc --version > gcc (GCC) 14.3.1 20250523 (Red Hat 14.3.1-1) > > and Fedora 42: > > gcc (GCC) 15.1.1 20250521 (Red Hat 15.1.1-2) > > Maybe there's some strange cross-distro difference here, but > what I'm wondering is if there's a difference in CFLAGS. > My build used > > CFLAGS = -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith > -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Werror=vla -Wendif-labels > -Wmissing-format-attribute -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 -Wcast-function-type > -Wshadow=compatible-local -Wformat-security -Wmissing-variable-declarations > -fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv -fexcess-precision=standard > -Wno-format-truncation -Wno-stringop-truncation -g -O2
Yeah, interestingly I didn't see the warning with CFLAGS your build used but got it if I use -O0 instead of -O2. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
