Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([2a02:16a8:dc51::56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1forgH-0003aP-JM for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 12 Aug 2018 14:49:21 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1forgF-0003DH-08 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 12 Aug 2018 14:49:19 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1forgE-0003DA-PW for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 12 Aug 2018 14:49:18 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1forg5-0007o3-EW for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 12 Aug 2018 14:49:18 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w7CEn3lw016480; Sun, 12 Aug 2018 10:49:03 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Fabien COELHO cc: PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: Allowing printf("%m") only where it actually works In-reply-to: References: <20180528150125.j2x3mp62ssbeg3h5@alvherre.pgsql> <2685.1527520461@sss.pgh.pa.us> <8770.1533931511@sss.pgh.pa.us> <16896.1533935042@sss.pgh.pa.us> <14925.1534040609@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Fabien COELHO message dated "Sun, 12 Aug 2018 09:27:31 +0200" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <16478.1534085343.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2018 10:49:03 -0400 Message-ID: <16479.1534085343@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Fabien COELHO writes: > Indeed, there are hundreds of warnings around "pg_printf_attribute_m" > added with gcc 7.3.0 on by ubuntu 18.04 laptop, thanks to 3a60c8ff. Oh? What warnings exactly? I would not expect any new warnings except on platforms where gcc believes the local printf is non POSIX compliant, which certainly ought not happen on any non-obsolete Linux. regards, tom lane