| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Further news on Clang - spurious warnings |
| Date: | 2011-08-03 10:40:42 |
| Message-ID: | 4E3925AA.3050301@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 03.08.2011 13:05, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I don't believe that the standard allows for an implementation of
> enums as unsigned integers - after all, individual enum literals can
> be given corresponding negative integer values.
C99 says:
> Each enumerated type shall be compatible with char, a signed integer type, or an
> unsigned integer type. The choice of type is implementation-defined,110) but shall be
> capable of representing the values of all the members of the enumeration.
See also:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2579230/signedness-of-enum-in-c-c99-c-cx-gnu-c-gnu-c99
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2011-08-03 11:13:20 | Re: Further news on Clang - spurious warnings |
| Previous Message | Sergey Konoplev | 2011-08-03 10:35:43 | Odd VACUUM behavior when it is expected to truncate last empty pages |