Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: execl() sentinel

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Subject: Re: execl() sentinel
Date: 2007-07-18 15:16:17
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 18. Juli 2007 16:16 schrieb Tom Lane:
> > You should *not* have to inform the machine that NULL is a pointer.
> For variadic functions, that expectation is invalid, AFAIK.

No, what's invalid is that using an unadorned 0 is understood as a "null
pointer" by the compiler.  That would happen in a lot of places except
on a variadic function.

However, the platform may define NULL as it wishes, and indeed in our
c.h it is defined (conditionally) as (void *)0.  If the platform had
such a definition then it would work without issues.

I assume the platform in question does something like
#define NULL 0
which would be silly.

Alvaro Herrera              
"El conflicto es el camino real hacia la uniĆ³n"

In response to


pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2007-07-18 15:25:00
Subject: Re: execl() sentinel
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2007-07-18 15:04:28
Subject: Re: docfix - DELETE doesn't affect auto-analyze

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group