Chris Browne wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Conway) writes:
> > On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 17:22 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> I wouldn't know how to look for other variadic functions using NULL
> >> sentinels though.
> >
> > You would need something with more knowledge of C than "grep" has, at
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Conway) writes:
> On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 17:22 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I wouldn't know how to look for other variadic functions using NULL
>> sentinels though.
>
> You would need something with more knowledge of C than "grep" has, at
> any rate. Perhaps you could teac
On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 17:22 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I wouldn't know how to look for other variadic functions using NULL
> sentinels though.
You would need something with more knowledge of C than "grep" has, at
any rate. Perhaps you could teach sparse to do this analysis, if it
can't do it a
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
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
Am Mittwoch, 18. Juli 2007 17:16 schrieb Alvaro Herrera:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 18. Juli 2007 16:16 schrieb Tom Lane:
> > > You should *not* have to inform the machine that NULL is a pointer.
> >
> > For variadic functions, that expectation is invalid, AFAIK.
>
> No, what's inva
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 18. Juli 2007 16:16 schrieb Tom Lane:
> > You should *not* have to inform the machine that NULL is a pointer.
>
> For variadic functions, that expectation is invalid, AFAIK.
No, what's invalid is that using an unadorned 0 is understood as a "null
pointer" by
Am Mittwoch, 18. Juli 2007 16:16 schrieb Tom Lane:
> You should *not* have to inform the machine that NULL is a pointer.
For variadic functions, that expectation is invalid, AFAIK.
It might be good to check the actual definition of NULL in this case, however,
before wondering further.
--
Peter
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's too bad that gcc doesn't have a
>> -Wno-snarkiness-about-system-headers-thank-you switch.
> It does have a switch to *add* snarkiness about system headers, but does
> not do it by default.
> The problem in this case is that a
Tom Lane wrote:
> It's too bad that gcc doesn't have a
> -Wno-snarkiness-about-system-headers-thank-you switch.
It does have a switch to *add* snarkiness about system headers, but does
not do it by default.
The problem in this case is that an uncast null pointer constant is not
always a suffici
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> pg_regress.c: In function `spawn_process':
>> pg_regress.c:914: warning: missing sentinel in function call
> You can apply this, but it sure seems like a compiler/include file bug
> to me, even with the 64-bit explaination.
Ther
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner just let me know via Jabber that there's a warning
> in pg_regress.c:
>
> pg_regress.c: In function `spawn_process':
> pg_regress.c:914: warning: missing sentinel in function call
>
> This small patch would seem to fix it, according to
> http://www.li
Stefan Kaltenbrunner just let me know via Jabber that there's a warning
in pg_regress.c:
pg_regress.c: In function `spawn_process':
pg_regress.c:914: warning: missing sentinel in function call
This small patch would seem to fix it, according to
http://www.linuxonly.nl/docs/sentinel/
--
Alvar
13 matches
Mail list logo
