| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Grzegorz Jaskiewicz <gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: clang's static checker report. |
| Date: | 2009-08-30 18:33:47 |
| Message-ID: | 18257.1251657227@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Grzegorz Jaskiewicz <gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl> writes:
> On 30 Aug 2009, at 19:14, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yes, it's bogus. ctid is never passed as NULL. It might point at
>> an "invalid" itempointer (one with ip_posid == 0). Look at the only
>> call site.
> so why do we check if the pointer is valid ?
[ shrug... ] The macro is more general than is necessary in this
specific context. In an actual build I'd expect the compiler to figure
out that the null-pointer test is redundant and optimize it away, since
after inlining it would see that ctid is the address of a local variable.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-08-30 20:05:25 | Re: 8.5 release timetable, again |
| Previous Message | Grzegorz Jaskiewicz | 2009-08-30 18:28:21 | Re: clang's static checker report. |