Re: pg_upgrade's exec_prog() coding improvement

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> It sounds like it is suggestioning to use more specific attribute
> decoration.  This might be relevant:

> 	http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Warning-Options.html
	
> 	-Wmissing-format-attribute
> 	    Warn about function pointers that might be candidates for format
> 	attributes. Note these are only possible candidates, not absolute ones.
> 	GCC guesses that function pointers with format attributes that are used
> 	in assignment, initialization, parameter passing or return statements
> 	should have a corresponding format attribute in the resulting type. I.e.
> 	the left-hand side of the assignment or initialization, the type of the
> 	parameter variable, or the return type of the containing function
> 	respectively should also have a format attribute to avoid the warning.
	
> 	    GCC also warns about function definitions that might be candidates
> 	for format attributes. Again, these are only possible candidates. GCC
> 	guesses that format attributes might be appropriate for any function
> 	that calls a function like vprintf or vscanf, but this might not always
> 	be the case, and some functions for which format attributes are
> 	appropriate may not be detected. 

> and I see this option enabled in configure.in.

Hm.  I'm a bit dubious about enabling warnings that are so admittedly
heuristic as this.  They admit that the warnings might be wrong, and
yet document no way to shut them up.  I think we might be better advised
to not enable this warning.

			regards, tom lane