Re: cpluspluscheck vs ICU again

John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 12:26 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> BTW, I see that you applied ed26c4e25 only to master, but don't
>> we want to back-patch?  cpluspluscheck is not just an exercise in a
>> vacuum, it's to ensure that C++-coded extensions don't have trouble
>> with our headers.

> I was thinking that it was run only when developing new features, not
> for backpatch-able bug fixes, but that's a flawed assumption. I'll
> remedy that soon along with the new symbols above, unless you beat me
> to it.

Sounds good, thanks for dealing with it.

            regards, tom lane