On 2015-08-11 12:04:48 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > #define GinPageIsLeaf(page) ( GinPageGetOpaque(page)->flags & GIN_LEAF ) > > #define GinPageIsData(page) ( GinPageGetOpaque(page)->flags & GIN_DATA ) > > #define GinPageIsList(page) ( GinPageGetOpaque(page)->flags & GIN_LIST ) > > ... > > > > These macros don't actually return a boolean that's comparable with our > > true/false. That doesn't strike me as a good idea. > > > > If there's actually a boolean type defined by some included header (in > > which case we don't overwrite it in c.h!) this actually can lead to > > tests failing. If e.g. stdbool.h is included in c.h the tests fail with > > gcc-4.9. > > !! is unknown to our codebase except where you've added it, and > personally, I hate that idiom. I think we should write (val) != 0 > instead of !!val.
Hm. I find !! slightly simpler and it's pretty widely used in other projects, but I don't care much. As long as we fix the underlying issue, which != 0 certainly does... -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
