Обсуждение: Compiling warnings on old GCC
I came across the following compiling warnings on GCC (Red Hat 4.8.5-44)
4.8.5 with 'CFLAGS=-Og'
be-fsstubs.c: In function ‘be_lo_export’:
be-fsstubs.c:537:24: warning: ‘fd’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
if (CloseTransientFile(fd) != 0)
^
In file included from trigger.c:14:0:
trigger.c: In function ‘ExecCallTriggerFunc’:
../../../src/include/postgres.h:314:2: warning: ‘result’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
return (Pointer) X;
^
trigger.c:2316:9: note: ‘result’ was declared here
Datum result;
^
I wonder if this is worth fixing, maybe by a trivial patch like
attached.
Thanks
Richard
4.8.5 with 'CFLAGS=-Og'
be-fsstubs.c: In function ‘be_lo_export’:
be-fsstubs.c:537:24: warning: ‘fd’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
if (CloseTransientFile(fd) != 0)
^
In file included from trigger.c:14:0:
trigger.c: In function ‘ExecCallTriggerFunc’:
../../../src/include/postgres.h:314:2: warning: ‘result’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
return (Pointer) X;
^
trigger.c:2316:9: note: ‘result’ was declared here
Datum result;
^
I wonder if this is worth fixing, maybe by a trivial patch like
attached.
Thanks
Richard
Вложения
On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 at 19:14, Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> wrote: > I came across the following compiling warnings on GCC (Red Hat 4.8.5-44) > 4.8.5 with 'CFLAGS=-Og' > I wonder if this is worth fixing, maybe by a trivial patch like > attached. There's some relevant discussion in https://postgr.es/m/flat/20220602024243.GJ29853%40telsasoft.com David
On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 2:51 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 at 19:14, Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> wrote:
> I came across the following compiling warnings on GCC (Red Hat 4.8.5-44)
> 4.8.5 with 'CFLAGS=-Og'
> I wonder if this is worth fixing, maybe by a trivial patch like
> attached.
There's some relevant discussion in
https://postgr.es/m/flat/20220602024243.GJ29853%40telsasoft.com
Ah, thanks for pointing that out. Somehow I failed to follow that
thread.
It seems that the controversial '-Og' coupled with the old GCC version
(4.8) makes it not worth fixing. So please ignore this thread.
Thanks
Richard
thread.
It seems that the controversial '-Og' coupled with the old GCC version
(4.8) makes it not worth fixing. So please ignore this thread.
Thanks
Richard
Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 2:51 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote: >> There's some relevant discussion in >> https://postgr.es/m/flat/20220602024243.GJ29853%40telsasoft.com > It seems that the controversial '-Og' coupled with the old GCC version > (4.8) makes it not worth fixing. So please ignore this thread. Although nobody tried to enunciate a formal policy in the other thread, I think where we ended up is that we'd consider suppressing warnings seen with -Og, but only with reasonably-modern compiler versions. For LTS compilers we are only going to care about warnings seen with production flags (i.e., -O2 or better). regards, tom lane