MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAMSWrt-PoQt4sHryWrB1ViuGBJF_PpbjoSGrWR2Ry47bHNLDqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <fd9864f9-30bf-450b-a025-5e1bba58591a@eisentraut.org>
 <CAMSWrt-A0ha0qANftNYGpa8vEbtiD_7iV+0mdP0g9V8va=K0YA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN55FZ1OkRkQMT==EtTWesKBFdBG28WrzhYsex3UG67F7bAQ8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN55FZ2fc++9-G=Mc4D2rNV2wQdbFn6EWszMno18vQTdqnKpJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMSWrt-2riJci+iGvt=Dggb4eh=2HgP3hy6+K=rZSeW=XFczAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN55FZ2vFfRJ5Ewj44oo27J=qY=E9+3d8S_rcMbuGJP-Rm7yPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <49c98509-e415-49cb-8842-475994661e04@eisentraut.org>
 <8ade4a93-26d2-4995-94c9-ee3f8f794a24@eisentraut.org>
In-Reply-To: <8ade4a93-26d2-4995-94c9-ee3f8f794a24@eisentraut.org>
From: Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 18:36:56 +0300
Message-ID: 
 <CAN55FZ2Pa31vOuiFH+=pAyJUK1C83GQ1-14RERhxL+pBYZ0qjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add `headerscheck` run_target to meson
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Mi=C5=82osz_Bieniek?= <bieniek.milosz0@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAN55FZ2Pa31vOuiFH%2B%3DpAyJUK1C83GQ1-14RERhxL%2BpBYZ0qjQ%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Wed, 18 Mar 2026 at 14:59, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
>
> On 18.03.26 11:56, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >
> > Committed that, but without the regular expression changes.  I don't
> > understand why those would be needed.  Please provide more information
> > if necessary.  It worked for me without it.

It is working now. I can't reproduce the problem, it looks like it is
already fixed.


> I need another tweak for the cpluspluscheck.
>
> In meson, the distribution of the include flags between CPPFLAGS,
> CFLAGS, and CXXFLAGS ends up being a bit different, and we need to get a
> few -I options from CXXFLAGS in my case.
>
> I have attached two different variants for how to do this.  The first
> one just gets the -D and -I flags from CXXFLAGS.  This preserves most of
> the existing behavior.  The second aligns more with how CFLAGS works and
> removes the ability to override CXXFLAGS from the command line.  This is
> probably now better since we have more support for getting correct CXX
> and CXXFLAGS in the build system.  But it might be a change for some users.
>
> Thoughts?

I think we can go with the second variant first. If there is a
complaint, we can then consider switching to the first one. Does that
sound good? Also, second patch probably needs to remove lines below
from the src/tools/pginclude/README:

```
If you are using a non-g++-compatible C++ compiler, you may need to
override the script's CXXFLAGS setting by setting a suitable environment
value.
```


--
Regards,
Nazir Bilal Yavuz
Microsoft