On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> 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.
Yes, I agree, not very good. Ok, one more attempt: maybe instead of checking that stderr is empty we could check that stderr has changed in the presence of the option that we test? -- Thanks. -- Max -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
