Feedback-ID: i0fe9450f:Fastmail
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2025 09:41:21 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: VASUKI M <vasukim1992002@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	BharatDB <bharatdbpg@gmail.com>, torsten.rupp@gmx.net,
	pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org, byavuz81@gmail.com
Subject: Re: BUG #19095: Test if function exit() is used fail when linked
 static
Message-ID: <aTIqMdS7QPdkcT29@paquier.xyz>
References: <CAN55FZ2em+Wf6kWQ27bwQrLTTWJF7TcSDDKnjxGy+fxMVaGbvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <aSTRj99MkyI5zr0y@paquier.xyz>
 <CACTYHzhCNsee-4xv-HDhw8zmMWByB7YHLuUHh-bsztgZ94ewpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <483765ED-0490-4972-9769-4943716BE204@yesql.se>
 <aSZ3RUjc7BVE6-9j@paquier.xyz>
 <CACTYHzjbVeKV289+TB1mg+tVmpnOJWrtezTvRjUwYoc875p1XA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTYHzjjssid_jtZiLh8BTYHAvnxbSLXceyGtxM3NB6Kfv510g@mail.gmail.com>
 <22D3D4EC-BCC3-4E52-B5A9-E1C6E363517B@yesql.se>
 <aTDWg-ezihyoelN3@paquier.xyz>
 <CACTYHzimf5+6gp6HzCerZpWh4o2_TW6-S3k3+2YK5mnoQa-+tg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="nVucpPbJ6l+XyLNL"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACTYHzimf5+6gp6HzCerZpWh4o2_TW6-S3k3+2YK5mnoQa-+tg@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aTIqMdS7QPdkcT29%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--nVucpPbJ6l+XyLNL
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Dec 04, 2025 at 04:38:40PM +0530, VASUKI M wrote:
> This v6 series is squashed and rebased on the current master. It also
> includes the revisions and clarifications suggested in the previous round
> of review, including Michael=E2=80=99s comments.

Including the changes in ./configure is not mandatory for patch
authors, as this is something that committers take care of.  Still,
these are useful for the CI and testing the ./configure code.

> I agree with the approach of keeping the coverage
> condition local to each build system rather than relying on
> enable_coverage  as
> an environment variable. In practice, autoconf (enable_coverage) and Meson
> (b_coverage) expose their coverage settings independently, so duplicating
> the
> check avoids any accidental cross-build inconsistencies. It also prevents
> the
> script from having to detect build-system-specific flags internally, keep=
ing
> libpq-check.pl focused only on symbol inspection. So I think it makes sen=
se
> for Makefile and Meson to each guard their own invocation. What do you
> think?

The only differences I can see between v5 and v6 is that the perl
script uses whitespaces for its code indentation rather than tabs,
which I guess is not expected.  Most of the diffs between v6 and v5 go
away once a perl indentation is applied.

I am not going to take a bet on this one on a Friday, so let's give it
a few more days.  Have others any comments and/or concerns?
--
Michael

--nVucpPbJ6l+XyLNL
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=NRko
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nVucpPbJ6l+XyLNL--