Re: patch: garbage error strings in libpq

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  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