Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lAh2W-0005OJ-Vv for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 22:35:52 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lAh2V-0007D9-Ts for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 22:35:51 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lAh2V-0007Cw-NL for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 22:35:51 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lAh2T-0002mA-MN; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 22:35:50 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 11CMZk7F1610203; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:35:46 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Alexander Korotkov cc: Thomas Munro , Heikki Linnakangas , Alexander Korotkov , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: Detecting pointer misalignment (was Re: pgsql: Implementation of subscripting for jsonb) In-reply-to: <1557041.1613150383@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <37bb56a0-391d-759d-771b-9c1d8c15a84b@iki.fi> <3293925.1612163110@sss.pgh.pa.us> <475514.1612745257@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1557041.1613150383@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane message dated "Fri, 12 Feb 2021 12:19:43 -0500" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1610201.1613169346.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:35:46 -0500 Message-ID: <1610202.1613169346@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk I wrote: > Looking around at other recent reports, it looks like we'll need to tweak > the compiler version cutoffs a bit. I see for instance that spurfowl, > with gcc (Ubuntu 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.11) 5.4.0 20160609, is whining: > ... > So maybe it'd better be __GNUC__ >= 6 not __GNUC__ >= 5. I think > we can wait a little bit for more reports before messing with that, > though. Further reports show that gcc 6.x and 7.x also produce warnings, so I moved the cutoff up to 8. Hopefully that's good enough. We could write a configure test instead, but I'd just as soon not expend configure cycles on this. regards, tom lane