On December 22, 2017 7:52:54 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: >> On 2017-12-22 11:00:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I do not think it is reasonable for these functions to not set the >>> output variable at all in the overflow case; it is not their job >>> to opine on whether the caller may use the result. > >> I don't agree. Please note that that the function's documentation >> explicitly says "The content of *result is implementation defined in >> case of overflow.". > >I will not accept an implementation that spews compiler warnings >all over the place, which is what this one is doing. Please fix that, >or else I will.
Are you seriously implying that I'm suggesting that we live with a warning / that I refuse to fix one? All I was saying is that I don't want to exactly define which value *result is set to in case of overflow. Without having resolved the discussion of semantics it just seemed pointless to start fixing... Andres -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
