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.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-08-04 06:08:00|
|Subject: Re: Further news on Clang - spurious warnings |
|Previous:||From: jordani||Date: 2011-08-04 02:24:05|
|Subject: Re: Incremental checkopints|