Re: qsort vs MSVC build

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: qsort vs MSVC build
Date: 2006-10-19 18:11:00
Message-ID: 29952.1161281460@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 13:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Is it worth renaming our qsort to pg_qsort to avoid this? (I'd be
>> inclined to do that via a macro "#define qsort pg_qsort", not by running
>> around and changing all the code.)

> Why not change each call site? I don't think it would hurt to be clear
> about the fact that we're calling our own sorting function, not the
> platform's libc qsort().

I'm concerned about the prospect of someone forgetting to use pg_qsort,
and getting the likely-inferior platform one.

However, the only place where we probably care very much is tuplesort.c,
and that's using qsort_arg now anyway. So plan C might be to drop
port/qsort.c altogether, and just be sure to use qsort_arg anyplace that
we care about not getting the platform one.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Steve Crawford 2006-10-19 18:12:12 Re: CVS repository rsync
Previous Message Neil Conway 2006-10-19 18:05:22 Re: qsort vs MSVC build