=?utf-8?Q?Dagfinn_Ilmari_Manns=C3=A5ker?= writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> So maybe we should revive that idea, though I'd definitely target
>> autoconf 2.72 not 2.71.
> Just a data point: autoconf 2.72 came out under a year ago, so the most
> recent Debian Stable (12) and Ubuntu LTS (24.04) only h
Tom Lane writes:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> Ah, yeah. That was 2.71 actually:
>> https://postgr.es/m/3838336.1657985...@sss.pgh.pa.us
>> 1.72 seems to have been released with some fixes from that one. Per
>> that thread, the related problem you noticed was with m4, and apparently
>> it was bec
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Ah, yeah. That was 2.71 actually:
> https://postgr.es/m/3838336.1657985...@sss.pgh.pa.us
> 1.72 seems to have been released with some fixes from that one. Per
> that thread, the related problem you noticed was with m4, and apparently
> it was because macOS ships a version
On 2024-Oct-25, Tom Lane wrote:
> As I recall, we looked at adopting it some years ago and decided it
> was too much churn for the value (seeing that the long-term plan is
> to go to meson only). Maybe C23 is a reason to rethink, but from
> what I recall of that, it won't be a painless update.
A
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2024-Oct-22, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> One thing I didn't realize until today is that currently C23 compilations
>> only work with meson. The autoconf version we are using doesn't support it,
>> and the configure results it produces are somehow faulty and then you get
On 2024-Oct-22, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> One thing I didn't realize until today is that currently C23 compilations
> only work with meson. The autoconf version we are using doesn't support it,
> and the configure results it produces are somehow faulty and then you get a
> bunch of compilation er
On 22.10.24 08:41, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut writes:
Committed with that change. Thanks.
Should we back-patch this? (And also a67a49648d9?) It's
not hard to imagine people wanting to compile our stable
branches with C23 compilers. I might leave out v12, which
is just days away from
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> Committed with that change. Thanks.
Should we back-patch this? (And also a67a49648d9?) It's
not hard to imagine people wanting to compile our stable
branches with C23 compilers. I might leave out v12, which
is just days away from EOL, but this seems like a reasonabl
On 20.10.24 17:56, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut writes:
This no longer works because in C23, because an empty argument list is
now equivalent to (void), rather than an indeterminate one as before.
And so this results in an incompatible function pointer type and
compiler warnings. (gcc and
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> This no longer works because in C23, because an empty argument list is
> now equivalent to (void), rather than an indeterminate one as before.
> And so this results in an incompatible function pointer type and
> compiler warnings. (gcc and clang agree on this.)
> I
rrect type. This works in older
versions of C as well.
From 3be558bf4971904cd67cd9d80a5e2f52b66082b0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2024 08:10:30 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Fix C23 compiler warning
The approach of declaring a function pointer with an empty argumen
11 matches
Mail list logo
