> > Index: sql_schema.mx
> > ===================================================================
> > RCS file: /cvsroot/monetdb/sql/src/server/sql_schema.mx,v
> > retrieving revision 1.122
> > retrieving revision 1.123
> > diff -u -d -r1.122 -r1.123
> > --- sql_schema.mx 17 Apr 2007 12:27:07 -0000 1.122
> > +++ sql_schema.mx 18 Apr 2007 09:16:26 -0000 1.123
> > @@ -602,11 +602,10 @@
> > {
> > char *tname = qname_table(qname);
> > sql_schema *ss = cur_schema(sql);
> > - sql_trigger * t= NULL;
> >
> > if (!schema_privs(sql->role_id, ss))
> > return sql_error(sql, 02, "DROP TRIGGER: access denied for %s
> > to schema ;'%s'", stack_get_string(sql, "current_user"), ss->base.name);
> > - if ((t = mvc_bind_trigger(sql, ss, tname )) == NULL)
> > + if (mvc_bind_trigger(sql, ss, tname ) == NULL)
> > return sql_error(sql, 02, "DROP TRIGGER: unknown trigger %s\n",
> > tname);
> > mvc_drop_trigger(sql, ss, tname);
> > return stmt_none();
> Why I should not use the t?
well, of course you can use t, but the code above does (no longer) use t,
and icc correctly tell us that declaring and setting a variable without
using it does not make much sense...
> I found similar examples in the code. Maybe the the t was used after.
for sure, t must be used in these other cases; otherwise, icc would
(correcly!) complain.
since your yesterday's changes
(removal of "mvc_drop_dependencies(sql, t->base.id);")
t was not used any more;
cf.
http://monetdb.cvs.sourceforge.net/monetdb/sql/src/server/sql_schema.mx?view=log#rev1.121
http://monetdb.cvs.sourceforge.net/monetdb/sql/src/server/sql_schema.mx?r1=1.120&r2=1.121
in fact, you originally intorduced
"mvc_drop_dependencies(sql, t->base.id);", and hence the need for t on
Tue Oct 31 2006, cf.,
http://monetdb.cvs.sourceforge.net/monetdb/sql/src/server/sql_schema.mx?view=log#rev1.100
http://monetdb.cvs.sourceforge.net/monetdb/sql/src/server/sql_schema.mx?r1=1.99&r2=1.100
but then apparently forgot to clean-up properly, when removing
"mvc_drop_dependencies(sql, t->base.id);", again ...
> I agree with this change I think it does affect the semantics of the
> function.
you do agree although it does affect the semantics?
well, I hoped it would not change the semantics...
can you explain in what way it does change the semantics?
Stefan
> Regards,
> Romulo
--
| Dr. Stefan Manegold | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| CWI, P.O.Box 94079 | http://www.cwi.nl/~manegold/ |
| 1090 GB Amsterdam | Tel.: +31 (20) 592-4212 |
| The Netherlands | Fax : +31 (20) 592-4312 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Monetdb-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/monetdb-developers
