Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 04/20/2011 04:28 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> So the list of possible additions Andrew supplied are cases where we
>> never reference those typedefs --- seems like a cleanup opportunity.
> I think the best cleanup idea is Aidan's, namely is we have declared
> "typdef struct foo { ... } foo;" we should use "foo" in the code
> instead of "struct foo". Then the typedef will be referenced, and the
> code will be cleaner, and we won't run into the pgindent "struct" bug
> either, so it's a win/win/win.
We want to do that in any case. I think that Bruce was suggesting going
further and actively removing unreferenced struct tags from the
declaration sites. I'm less enthused about that. It would save nothing
except some probably-unmeasurable amount of compile time, and it'd
result in a lot of diffs that might come back to bite future
back-patching efforts.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
