On 7 Apr 2013, at 05:14, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Greg Jaskiewicz <gryz...@me.com> wrote: >> Looking around the code Today, one of my helpful tools detected this dead >> code. >> As far as I can see, it is actually unused call to strlen() in formatting.c, >> float8_to_char(). > > I poked at this a little and suggest the following somewhat more > extensive cleanup. > > It seems to me that there are a bunch of these functions where len is > unconditionally initialized in NUM_TOCHAR_prepare and then used there. > Similarly in NUM_TOCHAR_cleanup. And then there's a chunk of each > individual function that does it a third time. Rather than use the > same variable in all three places, I've moved the variable > declarations to the innermost possible scope. Doing that revealed a > bunch of other, similar places where we can get rid of strlen() calls. > > Does this version seem like a good idea?
Looks more extensive :-) On the quick glance, without a lot of testing it looks ok. But the lack of test cases stressing all different cases in that file, makes it impossible to say that there's no regressions. Personally I always feel uneasy making extensive changes in complicated code like this, without any integrated test case(s). -- GJ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
