On 2015-08-11 17:42:37 +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > #define GinPageIsLeaf(page) ( GinPageGetOpaque(page)->flags & GIN_LEAF ) > #define GinPageIsData(page) ( GinPageGetOpaque(page)->flags & GIN_DATA ) > #define GinPageIsList(page) ( GinPageGetOpaque(page)->flags & GIN_LIST ) > ... > > These macros don't actually return a boolean that's comparable with our > true/false. That doesn't strike me as a good idea. > > If there's actually a boolean type defined by some included header (in > which case we don't overwrite it in c.h!) this actually can lead to > tests failing. If e.g. stdbool.h is included in c.h the tests fail with > gcc-4.9.
I guess the reason here is that if it's a boolean type known to the compiler it's free to assume that it only contains true/false... > I think we should add a !! to these macros to make sure it's an actual > boolean. > > This has been the case since gin's initial commit in 8a3631f8d86cdd9b0 . Even worse, we have that kind of macro all over. I thought e.g. HeapTupleHeaderIs* would be safe agains that, but that turns out not be the case. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
