On 2017-03-17 15:29:27 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > 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 :/ > > Right. git blame says it was changed in 2004. > > >> /* > >> * 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? > > Fine with me.
For posterities sake: I've indeed done so. - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
