Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> 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. > >> 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, > > Sure, but that's a plain old assignment that can cope with the two > variables being of different widths, so long as the value to be assigned > fits in both. (And if it doesn't, I trust you'll agree that the code is > broken...) Casting at the call is simply going to misbehave, very > nastily, if somehow the variable isn't of the width the function is > expecting.
Ok. Seems reasonble to change it to a cast in that place instead - will do. >> 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? > > Probably not, although I seem to recall we have done that elsewhere > (pg_ctl maybe?) Yeah, we have done it in one or two places. I'll just go with the cast per above for this time. //Magnus -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
