| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Further news on Clang - spurious warnings |
| Date: | 2011-08-04 05:59:07 |
| Message-ID: | 4E3A352B.4030203@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04.08.2011 04:21, David Fetter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 01:40:42PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Are we moving to C99?
>
> C89 says:
>
> Each enumerated type shall be compatible with an integer type; the
> choice of type is implementation-defined.
Well, that's the same thing, just in less explicit words.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-08-04 06:08:00 | Re: Further news on Clang - spurious warnings |
| Previous Message | jordani | 2011-08-04 02:24:05 | Re: Incremental checkopints |