Re: Back branches vs. gcc 4.8.0
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Back branches vs. gcc 4.8.0 |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 15087.1365202206@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Back branches vs. gcc 4.8.0 (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Back branches vs. gcc 4.8.0
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> writes:
> Are you proposing that we use the FLEXIBLE_ARRAY_MEMBER macro in every
> single place where we currently use the one element array pattern?
Yup, exactly.
> I count one place where we currently use FLEXIBLE_ARRAY_MEMBER. It'd be
> pretty ugly to have that everywhere, in my opinion.
Hm, I see 4 places in HEAD. But in any case, is
int16 values[1]; /* VARIABLE LENGTH ARRAY */
} int2vector; /* VARIABLE LENGTH STRUCT */
really better than
int16 values[FLEXIBLE_ARRAY_MEMBER];
} int2vector;
? I don't think so. Relying on comments to tell about critical
semantics of a data structure isn't really nice if you can do it
in a way that is standards-blessed and (some) compilers understand.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: