drop src/backend/port/darwin/system.c ?

Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:

/* only needed in OS X 10.1 and possibly early 10.2 releases */
Maybe it's time to let it go?

One part of me says it's not hurting anything, but another part
says that if it were broken we wouldn't know. And it looks like
we can drop that whole subdirectory if we kill it, so let's.

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:

/* only needed in OS X 10.1 and possibly early 10.2 releases */
Maybe it's time to let it go?

One part of me says it's not hurting anything, but another part
says that if it were broken we wouldn't know. And it looks like
we can drop that whole subdirectory if we kill it, so let's.

I've discovered that when I build the source tree with coverage
enabled, the fact that that directory ends up containing a .o file
with no code in it breaks things. This is no doubt a bug in some part
of the code coverage toolchain, but all the same I'll be happy if that
file can go away.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:

/* only needed in OS X 10.1 and possibly early 10.2 releases */
Maybe it's time to let it go?

One part of me says it's not hurting anything, but another part
says that if it were broken we wouldn't know. And it looks like
we can drop that whole subdirectory if we kill it, so let's.

I've discovered that when I build the source tree with coverage
enabled, the fact that that directory ends up containing a .o file
with no code in it breaks things. This is no doubt a bug in some part
of the code coverage toolchain, but all the same I'll be happy if that
file can go away.

Ah, well then it *is* hurting something.

Also, the early releases of OS X were rough enough that it's pretty hard
to believe anyone is still using them anywhere (certainly the buildfarm
isn't). So the odds of anyone caring if we remove this file seem
negligible. Let's nuke it.

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On 8/17/16 12:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

Also, the early releases of OS X were rough enough that it's pretty hard
to believe anyone is still using them anywhere (certainly the buildfarm
isn't). So the odds of anyone caring if we remove this file seem
negligible. Let's nuke it.

done

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers