From: | Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Joe Nelson <joe(at)begriffs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Smith, Peter" <peters(at)fast(dot)au(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers for nulls/values arrays |
Date: | 2019-10-02 17:36:14 |
Message-ID: | 2793d0d2-c65f-5db0-4f89-251188438391@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/2/19 8:46 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Nelson <joe(at)begriffs(dot)com> writes:
>> Isaac Morland wrote:
>>> I hope you'll forgive a noob question. Why does the "After"
>>> initialization for the boolean array have {0} rather than {false}?
>
>> I think using a value other than {0} potentially gives the incorrect
>> impression that the value is used for *all* elements of the
>> array/structure, whereas it is only used for the first element.
>
> There's been something vaguely bothering me about this proposal,
> and I think you just crystallized it.
>
>> Using {false} may encourage the unwary to try
>> bool foo[2] = {true};
>> which will not set all elements to true.
>
> Right. I think that in general it's bad practice for an initializer
> to not specify all fields/elements of the target. It is okay in the
> specific case that we're substituting for a memset(..., 0, ...).
> Perhaps we could make this explicit by using a coding style like
>
> /* in c.h or some such place: */
> #define INIT_ALL_ZEROES {0}
>
> /* in code: */
> Datum values[N] = INIT_ALL_ZEROES;
>
> and then decreeing that it's not project style to use a partial
> initializer other than in this way.
There are numerous locations in the code that raise warnings when
-Wmissing-field-initializers is handed to gcc. See, for example,
src/backend/utils/adt/formatting.c where
static const KeyWord NUM_keywords[]
is initialized, and the code comment above that disclaims the need to
initialize is_digit and date_mode. Are you proposing cleaning up all
such incomplete initializations within the project?
I understand that your INIT_ALL_ZEROS macro does nothing to change
whether -Wmissing-field-initializers would raise a warning. I'm
just asking about the decree you propose, and I used that warning flag
to get the compiler to spit out relevant examples.
mark
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-10-02 17:43:51 | Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index. |
Previous Message | Alexey Kondratov | 2019-10-02 17:28:09 | Re: Two pg_rewind patches (auto generate recovery conf and ensure clean shutdown) |