Neil Conway wrote: > On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 16:59 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > It might be good to check the actual definition of NULL in this case, > > however, > > before wondering further. > > Well, the existing coding is plainly wrong, regardless of the NULL > implementation used on any given machine (although it will usually > work). The simple rule is "you need to cast NULL to a pointer type when > passing arguments to a variadic function, or to a function whose > prototype is not in scope". > > So +1 on this patch from me.
Thanks, committed. I looked for other uses of execl(), execle() and execlp() and found a single one of execl() which is already OK. I wouldn't know how to look for other variadic functions using NULL sentinels though. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
