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

Re: Further news on Clang - spurious warnings

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Further news on Clang - spurious warnings
Date: 2011-08-03 10:40:42
Message-ID: 4E3925AA.3050301@enterprisedb.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 03.08.2011 13:05, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I don't believe that the standard allows for an implementation of
> enums as unsigned integers - after all, individual enum literals can
> be given corresponding negative integer values.

C99 says:

> Each enumerated type shall be compatible with char, a signed integer type, or an
> unsigned integer type. The choice of type is implementation-defined,110) but shall be
> capable of representing the values of all the members of the enumeration.

See also:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2579230/signedness-of-enum-in-c-c99-c-cx-gnu-c-gnu-c99

-- 
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter GeogheganDate: 2011-08-03 11:13:20
Subject: Re: Further news on Clang - spurious warnings
Previous:From: Sergey KonoplevDate: 2011-08-03 10:35:43
Subject: Odd VACUUM behavior when it is expected to truncate last empty pages

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