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

Re: Further news on Clang - spurious warnings

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Further news on Clang - spurious warnings
Date: 2011-08-03 20:03:39
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 3 August 2011 15:29, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> There is another point here, though, which is that if we're not sure
>> whether the compiler considers ExecStatusType to be signed or unsigned,
>> then we have no idea what the test "status < PGRES_EMPTY_QUERY" even
>> means.

> I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by this.

I mean that it's unclear what you'll get if status has a bitpattern
equivalent to a negative integer.  If the compiler implements the
comparison as signed, the test will yield TRUE; if unsigned, it's FALSE.

>> So I think the most reasonable fix is probably
>>        if ((unsigned int) status >= sizeof pgresStatus / sizeof pgresStatus[0])
>> which is sufficient to cover both directions, since if status is passed
>> as -1 then it will convert to a large unsigned value.  It's also a
>> natural expression of what we really want, ie, that the integer
>> equivalent of the enum value is in range.

> I'm not convinced that that is an improvement to rely on the
> conversion doing so, but it's not as if I feel very strongly about it.

The C standard specifies that signed-to-unsigned conversions must work
like that; and even if the standard didn't, it would surely work like
that on any machine with two's-complement representation, which is to
say every computer built in the last forty years or so.  So I don't find
it a questionable assumption.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-08-03 20:10:28
Subject: Re: mosbench revisited
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-08-03 19:38:50
Subject: Re: mosbench revisited

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