On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:05:48AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:01 AM, Max Filippov <jcmvb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> We don't want every link step producing a useless warning. > >> Ideally, "make -s" would print nothing whatsoever; to the extent that > >> tools produce unsuppressable routine chatter, that's evil because it > >> makes it harder to notice actually-useful warnings. > > > > Then maybe stderr tests should grep output for a specific option, the > > one we're currently testing, not just any noise? > > That sounds awfully fragile to me. It can't really be safe to assume > we know precisely what the warning messages will look like. But it > seems to me that compiling every test program with every library we > might need is not a great plan. > > (I don't know enough about autoconf to know whether changing that is > realistic.)
It was our only plan, and it has worked fine in the past. Someone is going to have to do a lot of portability research to improve it. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
