Re: [BUGS] BUG #7588: pgsql 9.1 incompatible with zlib 1.27

2012-10-08 Thread John Marino
On 10/7/2012 21:54, Tom Lane wrote: John Marino writes: Perhaps, you need to take a closer look at this. I guarantee that I didn't do this for cosmetic reasons. GCC behavior changed with GCC 4.5 on this topic. You should report it as a bug in whatever distro you're using, because the behavio

Re: [BUGS] BUG #7588: pgsql 9.1 incompatible with zlib 1.27

2012-10-08 Thread John Marino
On 10/7/2012 19:35, Tom Lane wrote: John Marino writes: On 10/7/2012 18:36, Tom Lane wrote: This issue is dealt with in 9.2. I don't think we are going to change it in previous release branches, because these are only warnings no? It successfully completes the build. I don't know if the w

Re: [BUGS] BUG #7588: pgsql 9.1 incompatible with zlib 1.27

2012-10-08 Thread John Marino
On 10/7/2012 21:14, Tom Lane wrote: John Marino writes: By the way, I also had to patch 9.1.6 in order to build it with gcc47: http://pkgsrc.se/files.php?messageId=20121007102454.6e70d17...@cvs.netbsd.org [ shrug... ] I just tried 9.1.6 with gcc 4.7.0 and 4.7.2 on Fedora, and saw nothing but

Re: [BUGS] BUG #7588: pgsql 9.1 incompatible with zlib 1.27

2012-10-08 Thread John Marino
On 10/7/2012 22:26, Tom Lane wrote: John Marino writes: Are you 100% sure that offsetof is evaluated at compile time? Is this not part of section 6.6 that I quoted earlier? My copy of C99 sayeth (in section 7.17) offsetof(type, member-designator) which expands to an

Re: [BUGS] BUG #7588: pgsql 9.1 incompatible with zlib 1.27

2012-10-08 Thread John Marino
On 10/7/2012 22:26, Tom Lane wrote: John Marino writes: Are you 100% sure that offsetof is evaluated at compile time? Is this not part of section 6.6 that I quoted earlier? My copy of C99 sayeth (in section 7.17) offsetof(type, member-designator) which expands to an

Re: [BUGS] BUG #7588: pgsql 9.1 incompatible with zlib 1.27

2012-10-08 Thread John Marino
On 10/7/2012 18:36, Tom Lane wrote: > DragonFly has zlib 1.27 as a base library. I noticed several zlib warnings > when pgsql 9.1.6 was being built with gcc47. The various utilities in > src/bin are using the zlib.h header incorrectly. This issue is dealt with in 9.2. I don't think we are

Re: [BUGS] BUG #7588: pgsql 9.1 incompatible with zlib 1.27

2012-10-07 Thread Tom Lane
John Marino writes: > Are you 100% sure that offsetof is evaluated at compile time? Is this > not part of section 6.6 that I quoted earlier? My copy of C99 sayeth (in section 7.17) offsetof(type, member-designator) which expands to an integer constant expression that

Re: [BUGS] BUG #7588: pgsql 9.1 incompatible with zlib 1.27

2012-10-07 Thread Tom Lane
John Marino writes: > Perhaps, you need to take a closer look at this. I guarantee that I > didn't do this for cosmetic reasons. GCC behavior changed with GCC 4.5 > on this topic. You should report it as a bug in whatever distro you're using, because the behavior did *not* change anywhere else

Re: [BUGS] BUG #7588: pgsql 9.1 incompatible with zlib 1.27

2012-10-07 Thread Tom Lane
John Marino writes: > By the way, I also had to patch 9.1.6 in order to build it with gcc47: > http://pkgsrc.se/files.php?messageId=20121007102454.6e70d17...@cvs.netbsd.org [ shrug... ] I just tried 9.1.6 with gcc 4.7.0 and 4.7.2 on Fedora, and saw nothing but a handful of cosmetic warnings. I

Re: [BUGS] BUG #7588: pgsql 9.1 incompatible with zlib 1.27

2012-10-07 Thread Tom Lane
John Marino writes: > On 10/7/2012 18:36, Tom Lane wrote: >> This issue is dealt with in 9.2. I don't think we are going to change >> it in previous release branches, because these are only warnings no? > It successfully completes the build. I don't know if the warnings are > harmless or not.

Re: [BUGS] BUG #7588: pgsql 9.1 incompatible with zlib 1.27

2012-10-07 Thread Tom Lane
dr...@marino.st writes: > DragonFly has zlib 1.27 as a base library. I noticed several zlib warnings > when pgsql 9.1.6 was being built with gcc47. The various utilities in > src/bin are using the zlib.h header incorrectly. This issue is dealt with in 9.2. I don't think we are going to change i