Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 2020-06-30 21:38, Tom Lane wrote: >> In any case, I think the issue here is what is the escape hatch for saying >> that "I know this cast is okay, don't warn about it, thanks". Treating >> "void (*) (void)" as special for that purpose is nothing more nor less >> than a kluge, so another compiler might do it differently. Given the >> POSIX restriction, I think we could reasonably use "void *" instead.
> I think gcc had to pick some escape hatch that is valid also outside of > POSIX, so they just had to pick something. If we're disregarding > support for these Harvard architecture type things, then we might as > well use void * for easier notation. As long as it's behind a typedef, the code will look the same in any case ;-). > Btw., one of the hunks in my patch was in PL/Python. I have found an > equivalent change in the core Python code, which does make use of void > (*) (void): https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/62be74290aca Given that gcc explicitly documents "void (*) (void)" as being what to use, they're going to have a hard time changing their minds about that ... and gcc is dominant enough in this space that I suppose other compilers would have to be compatible with it. So even though it's theoretically bogus, I suppose we might as well go along with it. The typedef will allow a centralized fix if we ever find a better answer. regards, tom lane