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: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Further news on Clang - spurious warnings
Date: 2011-08-04 05:59:07
Message-ID: 4E3A352B.4030203@enterprisedb.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 04.08.2011 04:21, David Fetter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 01:40:42PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Are we moving to C99?
>
> C89 says:
>
>      Each enumerated type shall be compatible with an integer type; the
>      choice of type is implementation-defined.

Well, that's the same thing, just in less explicit words.

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

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-08-04 06:08:00
Subject: Re: Further news on Clang - spurious warnings
Previous:From: jordaniDate: 2011-08-04 02:24:05
Subject: Re: Incremental checkopints

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