Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >> Further research shows that C89 explicitly dropped support for the old > >> K&R "=-" operator, so we probably *should* remove this in case it > >> introduces an unintended bug. > > Well, the point is if someone does use that, it isn't going to generate > > a pgindent error, but rather produce incorrect C code because =- is > > going to be changed. FYI, my gcc 2.95.3 allows =- and does work as > > intended. > > > > As intended by whom? If the effect of "x=4; x =- 1;" is to subtract 1 > from x then that's simply wrong by C89. It should assign -1 to x. The > "=-" must be parsed as two operators in C89, assignment and unary minus. > pgindent should not under any circumstances change the semantics of the > program being indented, and that's what this transformation does for > compilers conforming to the standard we explicitly follow. > > What happens when your ancient gcc is told to apply the ansi standard?
I see now that my test wasn't complete. You are right it assigns -1 so we can remove this from pgupgrade. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
