From: | jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl |
---|---|
To: | "Stephan Szabo" <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
Cc: | jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: patch: garbage error strings in libpq |
Date: | 2005-07-10 07:38:35 |
Message-ID: | 5924.202.176.106.14.1120981115.squirrel@202.176.106.14 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Stephan Szabo wrote:
> I believe overlap of functions in the same expression was disallowed by
> the response to defect report 087. The only reference I've been able to
> find right now (since the committee seems to have removed the C89 DRs from
> their site) is in the response to DR 287 which includes:
>
> "Proposed Committee Response
> As noted in the response to DR 087, function calls in the same expression
> do not overlap. This has not changed for C99."
Yay! Good one. The quote Tom gave was not in the C99 draft I have access
to, and the 1998 C++ standard only contains a footnote implying that the C
standard at the time _did_ allow overlap of function calls whose order is
not specified. But what you quote here (apart from the "Proposed")
implies that C89 makes the guarantees we need.
Jeroen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marko Kreen | 2005-07-10 09:08:36 | Re: pgp encrypt v4 |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-07-10 04:58:24 | Re: PL/Python error checking |