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 1nKrKK-0007Iv-BK for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 00:40:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nKrKJ-0007Kt-0r for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 00:40:47 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nKrKI-0007Kk-Nk for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 00:40:46 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nKrKG-0000DX-5S for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 00:40:46 +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 21I0edRa3778789; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 19:40:39 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Andres Freund cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: Silencing upcoming warning about stack_base_ptr In-reply-to: <20220218001255.cb566si23kq5f64r@alap3.anarazel.de> References: <3773792.1645141467@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20220218001255.cb566si23kq5f64r@alap3.anarazel.de> Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund message dated "Thu, 17 Feb 2022 16:12:55 -0800" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3778787.1645144839.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 19:40:39 -0500 Message-ID: <3778788.1645144839@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Andres Freund writes: > On 2022-02-17 18:44:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> (that's visible now on buildfarm member caiman). We probably >> should take some thought for silencing this before it starts >> to be in people's faces during routine development. > We could try using __builtin_frame_address(0) when available, presumably gcc > won't warn about that... Oh, I didn't know about that. Seems like a better option since then we don't need any API changes at all. Maybe at some point some non-gcc-alike will start delivering a comparable warning, but then we could fall back to what I did here. regards, tom lane