| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Yury Zhuravlev <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: GinPageIs* don't actually return a boolean |
| Date: | 2016-02-12 16:46:36 |
| Message-ID: | 3366513D-E909-4F83-8043-B5B247FAFF0F@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On February 12, 2016 5:40:29 PM GMT+01:00, Yury Zhuravlev <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>Andres Freund wrote:
>> Unless I am missing something major, that doesn't seem to
>> achieve all that much. A cast to a char based bool wouldn't
>> normalize this to 0 or 1. So you're still not guaranteed to be
>> able to do somebool == anotherbool when either are set based on
>> such a macro.
>>
>
>In C99 cast to bool return 0 or 1 only.
Don't you say. That's why I brought all this up.
> In older compilers nothing
>changes
>(Now the code is designed to "char == char").
>I think this is a good option. But of course to write bool and use char
>
>strange.
Did you read what I wrote? That's not correct for char booleans, because the can have different bits set.
Andres
---
Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-02-12 16:48:32 | Re: GinPageIs* don't actually return a boolean |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-02-12 16:43:49 | Re: Code of Conduct plan |