Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: execl() sentinel

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Subject: Re: execl() sentinel
Date: 2007-07-18 14:16:01
Message-ID: 17954.1184768161@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's too bad that gcc doesn't have a
>> -Wno-snarkiness-about-system-headers-thank-you switch.

> It does have a switch to *add* snarkiness about system headers, but does 
> not do it by default.

> The problem in this case is that an uncast null pointer constant is not 
> always a sufficient sentinel for variadic functions, as explained here: 
> <http://c-faq.com/null/null2.html>.

Sure, but on a machine where it actually matters (ie one where int and
pointer are of different sizes), I'd expect NULL to be #define'd as 
"((void *) 0)" not just "0".  You should *not* have to inform the
machine that NULL is a pointer.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2007-07-18 14:59:34
Subject: Re: execl() sentinel
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2007-07-18 10:43:36
Subject: Re: HOT latest patch - version 8

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group