| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | "Smith, Peter" <peters(at)fast(dot)au(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Add more compile-time asserts to expose inconsistencies. |
| Date: | 2019-09-30 17:20:54 |
| Message-ID: | 16425.1569864054@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2019-09-19 04:46:27 +0000, Smith, Peter wrote:
>> In the attached patch example I have defined a new macro
>> StaticAssertDecl. A typical usage of it is shown in the relpath.c
>> file.
> I'm in favor of adding that - in fact, when I was working on adding a a
> static_assert wrapper, I was advocating for only supporting compilers
> that know static_assert, so we can put these in the global scope. The
> number of compilers that don't support static_assert is pretty small
> today, especially compared to 2012, when we added these.
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/E1TIW1p-0002yE-AY%40gemulon.postgresql.org
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/27446.1349024252%40sss.pgh.pa.us
> Tom, you were arguing for restricting to file scope to get broader
> compatibility, are you ok with adding a seperate *Decl version?
It could use another look now that we require C99. I'd be in favor
of having a decl-level static assert if practical.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-09-30 17:28:53 | Re: Proposal: Add more compile-time asserts to expose inconsistencies. |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-09-30 17:15:10 | Re: Two pg_rewind patches (auto generate recovery conf and ensure clean shutdown) |