Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> Surely this patch is wrong. It is suppressing, not fixing, a critical >>> warning about a datatype mismatch. > >> You mean the signed vs unsigned part? Other than that, int and dword are >> always the same on win32... > > Hmm, need more caffeine I guess. I was thinking dword == long. But in > any case, I'd feel a lot more comfortable if the patch ifdef'd the > declaration of exit_status to match, rather than forcing a cast of the > pointer value. Just a couple weeks ago I wasted a great deal of time > finding a bug that was created by someone overriding this exact type of > compiler warning with a cast to something that *wasn't* binary > compatible. (It worked fine on the author's machine, of course, but > not so much on one with a different sizeof long...)
Hmm. I looked at that, but that kind of just moves things around. If i change that variable to be DWORD, it still stuffs it into statuses[i] three lines further down, which then means that the whole definition of the function wait_for_tests need to be #ifdefed. I guess the proper solution in that case is to #define a datatype used for return codes. Is it really worth that for this, though? //Magnus -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers