Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> On the other hand, dungbeetle is failing to report
>> a whole bunch of typedefs that it should report,
> I tend to think that having this list is much better than no list at all
> (the current situation), and it's better than the old list we used to
> have.
Well, AIUI the old list was essentially the result of this code as run
on Bruce's BSD machine. We had supposed that the obvious omissions in
the old list were caused by platform-specific decisions to not build
code that referenced particular typedef names, but now I wonder. It
certainly appears that the technique has got some significant bug on
dungbeetle.
regards, tom lane