Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wI5RT-007mFf-0K for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2026 13:59:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wI5RS-003jey-0B for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2026 13:59:06 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wI5RR-003jep-2T for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2026 13:59:05 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1wI5RO-00000003M24-3NGZ for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2026 13:59:04 +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 63TDwwuZ3037391; Wed, 29 Apr 2026 09:58:58 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Peter Eisentraut cc: Nathan Bossart , John Naylor , Zhang Mingli , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:_[BUG=3F]_macOS_(Intel)_build_warnings:_"ranlib:_fil?= =?UTF-8?Q?e_=E2=80=A6_has_no_symbols"_for_aarch64_objects?= In-reply-to: <7d4f4b1a-9fa4-436f-9f87-001bc9b72ebd@eisentraut.org> References: <1472307.1770229663@sss.pgh.pa.us> <2446899.1777256313@sss.pgh.pa.us> <2871418.1777382981@sss.pgh.pa.us> <7d4f4b1a-9fa4-436f-9f87-001bc9b72ebd@eisentraut.org> Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut message dated "Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:07:12 +0200" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3037389.1777471138.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2026 09:58:58 -0400 Message-ID: <3037390.1777471138@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 28.04.26 22:32, Nathan Bossart wrote: >> Here's a full set of patches for back-patching purposes. >> protocol_openssl.c has a similar problem on older versions. I suppose this >> is the sort of thing I could back-patch all the way to v9.2. Does anyone >> feel strongly one way or the other about that? > Why should this be backpatched at all? To silence those warnings. If you're using a Mac for development, they're pretty annoying. And we have generally had a policy of trying to silence warnings in still-interesting branches. regards, tom lane