Re: Remove useless casting to the same type
| От | Peter Eisentraut |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Remove useless casting to the same type |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 6b654049-0c7a-445c-9fbf-8262c482abe4@eisentraut.org обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Remove useless casting to the same type (Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Remove useless casting to the same type
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 25.11.25 06:46, Bertrand Drouvot wrote: >>> @@ -389,7 +389,7 @@ hash_xlog_split_allocate_page(XLogReaderState *record) >>> >>> /* extract low and high masks. */ >>> memcpy(&lowmask, data, sizeof(uint32)); >>> - highmask = (uint32 *) ((char *) data + sizeof(uint32)); >>> + highmask = (uint32 *) (data + sizeof(uint32)); >> I wonder about these, too. I like knowing what the code does without >> having to check the type of `data`. But then later on we do a `data += >> sizeof(uint32) * 2`, so you have to check the type anyway, so... I >> don't know. > I think that even with the cast in place, it's good to check the type of data. > Not for the line that follows (i.e: "data += sizeof(uint32) * 2") but to check > that the cast makes sense and does not hide "wrong" pointer manipulation. > > So I think that with or without the cast one would need to check. But that feels > more natural to check when there is no cast (as we don't assume that someone > said "I know what I'm doing"). So I'm in favor of removing the cast, thoughts? I think this whole thing could be simplified by overlaying a uint32 over "data" and just accessing the array fields normally. See attached patch.
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: