Re: [HACKERS] Comparison with true in source code
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Itagaki Takahiro itagaki.takah...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 2:19 AM, Michael Meskes mes...@postgresql.org wrote: On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 12:17:02PM +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: There are some == true in the codes, but they might not be safe because all non-zero values are true in C. Is it worth cleaning up them? Here is a proposed cleanup that replaces boolean == true with boolean. I didn't touch == false unless they are not in pairs of comparisons with true because comparison with false is a valid C code. Note that I also changed boolean != true in pg_upgrade, but I didn't change ones in xlog.c because it might check corrupted fields in control files. src/interfaces/ecpg/preproc/ecpg.c(310): ptr2ext[3] = (header_mode == true) ? 'h' : 'c'; I actually see no reason why these variables are not defined as bool instead of int, so I changed this. Hopefully I found all of them. I added an additional cleanup to 'header_mode' in ecpg; I changed the type from bool to char to hold 'h' or 'c'. Do you think it is reasonable? I looked at this but found that part a bit too clever for its own good. So committed the rest, plus an additional one-line change to psql's print.c to avoid making the two accesses to format-wrap_right_pointer inconsistent with each other. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Comparison with true in source code
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:13, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: I added an additional cleanup to 'header_mode' in ecpg; I changed the type from bool to char to hold 'h' or 'c'. Do you think it is reasonable? I looked at this but found that part a bit too clever for its own good. So committed the rest, plus an additional one-line change to psql's print.c to avoid making the two accesses to format-wrap_right_pointer inconsistent with each other. Thanks! -- Itagaki Takahiro -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Comparison with true in source code
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Itagaki Takahiro itagaki.takah...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 2:19 AM, Michael Meskes mes...@postgresql.org wrote: On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 12:17:02PM +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: There are some == true in the codes, but they might not be safe because all non-zero values are true in C. Is it worth cleaning up them? Here is a proposed cleanup that replaces boolean == true with boolean. I didn't touch == false unless they are not in pairs of comparisons with true because comparison with false is a valid C code. It looks like you have one or two irrelevant whitespace changes in ecpg.c. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Comparison with true in source code
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 2:19 AM, Michael Meskes mes...@postgresql.org wrote: On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 12:17:02PM +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: There are some == true in the codes, but they might not be safe because all non-zero values are true in C. Is it worth cleaning up them? Here is a proposed cleanup that replaces boolean == true with boolean. I didn't touch == false unless they are not in pairs of comparisons with true because comparison with false is a valid C code. Note that I also changed boolean != true in pg_upgrade, but I didn't change ones in xlog.c because it might check corrupted fields in control files. src/interfaces/ecpg/preproc/ecpg.c(310): ptr2ext[3] = (header_mode == true) ? 'h' : 'c'; I actually see no reason why these variables are not defined as bool instead of int, so I changed this. Hopefully I found all of them. I added an additional cleanup to 'header_mode' in ecpg; I changed the type from bool to char to hold 'h' or 'c'. Do you think it is reasonable? -- Itagaki Takahiro bool_eq_true_cleanup.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Comparison with true in source code
On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 12:17:02PM +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: There are some == true in the codes, but they might not be safe because all non-zero values are true in C. Is it worth cleaning up them? ... src/interfaces/ecpg/ecpglib/connect.c(168): if (con-autocommit == true strncmp(mode, off, strlen(off)) == 0) src/interfaces/ecpg/preproc/ecpg.addons(356): if (compat == ECPG_COMPAT_INFORMIX_SE autocommit == true) src/interfaces/ecpg/preproc/ecpg.c(310): ptr2ext[3] = (header_mode == true) ? 'h' : 'c'; src/interfaces/ecpg/preproc/ecpg.c(327): ptr2ext[1] = (header_mode == true) ? 'h' : 'c'; I actually see no reason why these variables are not defined as bool instead of int, so I changed this. Hopefully I found all of them. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org Jabber: michael.meskes at googlemail dot com VfL Borussia! Força Barça! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
