From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: warnings for invalid function casts |
Date: | 2020-07-07 16:08:15 |
Message-ID: | 1527436.1594138095@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2020-07-04 16:16, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm for a typedef. There is *nothing* readable about "(void (*) (void))",
>> and the fact that it's theoretically incorrect for the purpose doesn't
>> exactly aid intelligibility either. With a typedef, not only are
>> the uses more readable but there's a place to put a comment explaining
>> that this is notionally wrong but it's what gcc specifies to use
>> to suppress thus-and-such warnings.
> Makes sense. New patch here.
I don't have a compiler handy that emits these warnings, but this
passes an eyeball check.
>>> But if we prefer a typedef then I'd propose
>>> GenericFuncPtr like in the initial patch.
>> That name is OK by me.
> I changed that to pg_funcptr_t, to look a bit more like C and less like
> Java. ;-)
I liked the first proposal better. Not gonna fight about it though.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thom Brown | 2020-07-07 16:51:55 | Re: [HACKERS] Look-behind regular expressions |
Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2020-07-07 15:29:27 | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |