Tom Lane wrote: > Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 14:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I would like to propose that we revert all the include-related changes > >> of the past two days, and that src/tools/pginclude be removed from the > >> CVS tree, until such time as it is rewritten to be much smarter about > >> what it is doing. > > > Rather than reverting the changes in CVS and then redoing them > > correctly, perhaps we could make the necessary improvements to the > > tools, apply the improved tools to the pre-cleaned-up version of the > > tree, get a diff against HEAD, and then apply any fixes the improved > > tools have made as a patch. That would avoid cluttering CVS with two > > redundant changes to almost every single source file in the tree. > > I've calmed down a little and am no longer wanting to insist on > reversion. My little Perl script is turning over and has found a number > of issues besides the original TOAST_INDEX_HACK one; some of them may > have been there before, so I'm thinking I'm going to add it to src/tools > rather than just treat it as a one-shot. > > We still have the issue of how Bruce managed to miss undeclared-function > warnings in some files. I'm concerned that that problem may remain for > some platforms or option combinations. Is there a way to get the > buildfarm to highlight compiler warnings?
I am stumped too. I have gcc 2.95.3 and never saw warnings in the syntax compile or the regular compile I use. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
