Re: Refactor compile-time assertion checks for C/C++

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Georgios Kokolatos <gkokolatos(at)pm(dot)me>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Refactor compile-time assertion checks for C/C++
Date: 2020-03-13 11:50:33
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 03:12:34PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 09:43:54AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't feel a need to expend a whole lot of sweat there. The existing
>> text is fine, it just bugged me that the code deals with three cases
>> while the comment block only acknowledged two. So I'd just go with
>> what you have in v3.
> Thanks, Tom. I have committed v3 then.

Hmm. v3 actually broke the C++ fallback of StaticAssertExpr() and
StaticAssertStmt() (v1 did not), a simple fix being something like
the attached.

The buildfarm does not really care about that, but it could for
example by using the only c++ code compiled in the tree in
src/backend/jit/? That also means that only builds using --with-llvm
with a compiler old enough would trigger that stuff.

Attachment Content-Type Size
cpp-fallback-fix.patch text/x-diff 781 bytes

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Pryzby 2020-03-13 12:00:56 Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill)
Previous Message Isaac Morland 2020-03-13 11:48:33 Re: truncating timestamps on arbitrary intervals