On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:01 AM, Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> We don't want every link step producing a useless warning.
>>> Ideally, "make -s" would print nothing whatsoever; to the extent that
>>> tools produce unsuppressable routine chatter, that's evil because it
>>> makes it harder to notice actually-useful warnings.
>>
>> Then maybe stderr tests should grep output for a specific option, the
>> one we're currently testing, not just any noise?
>
> That sounds awfully fragile to me. It can't really be safe to assume
> we know precisely what the warning messages will look like.
Yes, I agree, not very good.
Ok, one more attempt: maybe instead of checking that stderr is empty
we could check that stderr has changed in the presence of the option
that we test?
--
Thanks.
-- Max