Re: Fix C23 compiler warning
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari@ilmari.org>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>,
pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-10-28T14:14:12Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
=?utf-8?Q?Dagfinn_Ilmari_Manns=C3=A5ker?= <ilmari@ilmari.org> writes: > Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: >> So maybe we should revive that idea, though I'd definitely target >> autoconf 2.72 not 2.71. > Just a data point: autoconf 2.72 came out under a year ago, so the most > recent Debian Stable (12) and Ubuntu LTS (24.04) only have 2.71. I don't think we care, except to the extent that usage of 2.72 in widely-used distros would increase confidence in it (which is far from a trivial consideration). For many years, we've had a policy that committers should use autoconf-built-from-GNU-sources rather than distro packages. The distros tend to stick in local changes that affect the output, but we need uniform output so that there's not random churn in the committed version of the configure script. Still, we're in wait-and-see mode about C23, so maybe wait-and-see for awhile longer about autoconf 2.72 as well. > They both have m4 1.4.19, though. That's good news anyway. Per the older thread, building m4 from source is no fun at all. regards, tom lane
Commits
-
Fix C23 compiler warning
- f7a929a007e6 16.7 landed
- f3834c12afd8 17.3 landed
- d2b4b4c2259e 18.0 landed
-
Rename C23 keyword
- a67a49648d98 18.0 cited