Hi, On 2019-08-18 14:37:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > I've pushed the other ones. > > Checking whether header files compile standalone shows you were overly > aggressive about removing fmgr.h includes: > > In file included from /tmp/headerscheck.Ss8bVx/test.c:3: > ./src/include/utils/selfuncs.h:143: error: expected declaration specifiers or > '...' before 'FmgrInfo' > ./src/include/utils/selfuncs.h:146: error: expected declaration specifiers or > '...' before 'FmgrInfo' > ./src/include/utils/selfuncs.h:152: error: expected declaration specifiers or > '...' before 'FmgrInfo'
Darn. Pushed the obvious fix of adding a direct fmgr.h include, rather than the preivous indirect include. > That's with a script I use that's like cpluspluscheck except it tests > with plain gcc not g++. I attached it for the archives' sake. > > Oddly, cpluspluscheck does not complain about those cases, but it > does complain about Hm. I don't understand why it's not complaining. Wonder if it's a question of the flags or such. > In file included from /tmp/cpluspluscheck.FgX2SW/test.cpp:4: > ./src/bin/scripts/scripts_parallel.h:18: error: ISO C++ forbids declaration > of 'PGconn' with no type > ./src/bin/scripts/scripts_parallel.h:18: error: expected ';' before '*' token > ./src/bin/scripts/scripts_parallel.h:29: error: 'PGconn' has not been declared I noticed that "manually" earlier, when looking at the openbsd issue. > (My headerscheck script is missing that header; I need to update it to > match the latest version of cpluspluscheck.) I wonder if we should just add a #ifndef HEADERCHECK or such to the headers that we don't want to process as standalone headers (or #ifndef NOT_STANDALONE or whatever). That way multiple tools can rely on these markers, rather than copying knowledge about that kind of information into multiple places. I wish we could move the whole logic of those scripts into makefiles, so we could employ parallelism. Greetings, Andres Freund
