Hi Kevin,
On 2017-03-17 15:17:33 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Why do we warn of a hazard here instead of eliminating said hazard > with a static inline function declaration in executor.h? Presumably because it was written long before we started relying on inline functions :/ > /* > * ExecEvalExpr was formerly a function containing a switch statement; > * now it's just a macro invoking the function pointed to by an ExprState > * node. Beware of double evaluation of the ExprState argument! > */ > #define ExecEvalExpr(expr, econtext, isNull) \ > ((*(expr)->evalfunc) (expr, econtext, isNull)) > > Should I change that to a static inline function doing exactly what > the macro does? In the absence of multiple evaluations of a > parameter with side effects, modern versions of gcc have generated > the same code for a macro versus a static inline function, at least > in the cases I checked. I'm absolutely not against changing this to an inline function, but I'd prefer if that code weren't touched quite right now, there's a large pending patch of mine in the area. If you don't mind, I'll just include the change there, rather than have a conflict? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
