On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 at 09:38, Michael Paquier <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2026 at 09:06:02PM +1200, David Rowley wrote: > > 2. Doing #1 means the function can't be STRICT. I do think it's wrong > > that the function is marked as strict. That's normally reserved for > > functions that we needn't call because NULL input(s) yield a NULL > > output. That's not the case for this function. > > Using the existing HEAD approach where STRICT avoids these extra NULL > checks, or adding explicit NULL checks without STRICT does not strike > me as a big difference in this context.
I had to remove STRICT to allow NULL to be passed for the seed. When I first modified test_bitmapset.c to only choose a random seed when it received NULL, I thought it was strange that the function appeared to return NULL. It took me a minute to realise I was getting the STRICT NULL short-circuiting. > > I felt it was worth fixing these now as the function I plan to add > > there does #1, #2, #3 and #4. If I add the new function for v20, the > > discrepancy seems questionable. > > It is a test module, it would be a big issue if new pieces are > backpatched in this area. In short I'm fine with these. Thanks for > asking. Did you mean "wouldn't"? Thanks for looking. I pushed before I saw your reply. David
