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

Re: Is this portable?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "Zdenek Kotala" <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>, "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Is this portable?
Date: 2007-04-02 21:30:58
Message-ID: 28899.1175549458@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> IIRC there's something odd about the scope of the declared struct label.

> Something like it previously extended to the end of the file but post-ANSI was
> limited to the scope it's declared in (including very limited scopes where it
> would be useless such as in function parameters).

I think you might be thinking of the use of a previously unreferenced
"struct foo" in a function declaration's parameter list, which is
something that did change (and so gcc warns about it).  But within a
block is not that case.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-04-02 21:32:52
Subject: Re: CheckpointStartLock starvation
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2007-04-02 21:27:23
Subject: Re: Invalid to_date patterns (was: [PATCHES] [GENERAL] ISO week dates)

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