On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Andreas Pflug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Joe Conway wrote: > > >> 2) This allocation size was a bit ambigous and I think based on a once > > >> longer tablespace directory name: > > > > > This size calculation originated (copy/paste) from > > > commands/tablespace.c, > > > > Yeah --- Bruce did not adjust the string length calculations when he > > editorialized on the directory name. I'd been meaning to go back and > > make them match. > > > > > should be clarified there too (and "pg_tblspc" is > > > hardcoded in strings, could be extracted to a macro definition). > > > > [ shrug... ] The name is not going to change again. I have never cared > > for the practice of writing strlen("foo") as if it were a compile-time > > constant. But certainly it would be entirely pointless to define such a > > macro and then use it in only one place. > > I think with gcc strlen("foo") is a compile-time constant. At least I > remember that as a gcc optimization. What do you prefer? > sizeof("foo")-1? Certainly +3 is poorly documented, no?
You're right about the gcc optimisation: int i = strlen("foo"); 8048304: c7 45 fc 03 00 00 00 movl $0x3,0xfffffffc(%ebp) It does look messy thought. Can't this be cleared by a comment? Thanks, Gavin ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster