Hi,
During a recent code review, I noticed a lot of 'struct
LogicalDecodingContext' usage.
There are many function prototypes where the params are (for no
apparent reason to me) a mixture of structs and typedef structs.
AFAICT just by pre-declaring the typedef struct
LogicalDecodingCo
Peter Smith writes:
> AFAICT just by pre-declaring the typedef struct
> LogicalDecodingContext, all of those 'struct LogicalDecodingContext'
> can be culled, resulting in cleaner and more consistent function
> signatures.
Sadly, this is almost certainly going to cause b
On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 10:04 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Peter Smith writes:
> > AFAICT just by pre-declaring the typedef struct
> > LogicalDecodingContext, all of those 'struct LogicalDecodingContext'
> > can be culled, resulting in cleaner and more consistent
Peter Smith writes:
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 10:04 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Sadly, this is almost certainly going to cause bitching on the part of
>> some compilers, because depending on the order of header inclusions
>> they are going to see multiple typedefs for the same name. Redundant
>> "struc
I wrote:
> Peter Smith writes:
>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 10:04 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Sadly, this is almost certainly going to cause bitching on the part of
>>> some compilers, because depending on the order of header inclusions
>>> they are going to see multiple typedefs for the same name.
>> S
I wrote:
> Maybe later versions of the C
> spec clarify this, but I think duplicate typedefs are pretty
> clearly not OK per C99.
Further research shows that C11 allows this, but it's definitely
not okay in C99, which is still our reference standard.
> Perhaps with sufficiently tight warning
> or
On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 12:40 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> > Peter Smith writes:
> >> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 10:04 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Sadly, this is almost certainly going to cause bitching on the part of
> >>> some compilers, because depending on the order of header inclusions
> >>> t
Peter Smith writes:
> Apparently, not all C99 compilers can be assumed to work using the
> strict C99 rules.
While googling this issue I came across a statement that clang currently
defaults to C17 rules. Even relatively old compilers might default to
C11. But considering how long we held on to
I wrote:
> I'm a little inclined to see if I can turn on -std=gnu99 on my
> clang-based buildfarm animals. I use that with gcc for my
> normal development activities, but now that I see that clang
> catches some things gcc doesn't ...
FTR: done on sifaka and longfin.
rega
On 02.03.23 04:00, Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
I'm a little inclined to see if I can turn on -std=gnu99 on my
clang-based buildfarm animals. I use that with gcc for my
normal development activities, but now that I see that clang
catches some things gcc doesn't ...
FTR: done on sifaka and longfin
On 02.03.23 03:46, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Smith writes:
Apparently, not all C99 compilers can be assumed to work using the
strict C99 rules.
While googling this issue I came across a statement that clang currently
defaults to C17 rules. Even relatively old compilers might default to
C11. But
11 matches
Mail list logo
