Re: Back branches vs. gcc 4.8.0
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Back branches vs. gcc 4.8.0 |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 14920.1365201904@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Back branches vs. gcc 4.8.0 (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> The respective macro magic is already in place, its just not used in all
> places. The problem is more that we can't easily use it in all places
> because e.g. in the one case mentioned here the array isn't in the last
> place *in the back branches*.
I don't think we should try to back-patch such changes; there seems too
much risk of breaking third-party code because of the sizeof() issue.
But it'd be a good idea to have it in place before we find ourselves
having to do -fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations or some such even in
up-to-date branches.
(I'm actually even more worried about gcc bugs that make this type of
assumption than about intentional changes on their part.)
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: