Re: C nitpick about pgwin32_dispatch_queued_signals()

On 11/2/2025 10:50 AM, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Sun, 2025-11-02 at 11:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bryan Green <dbryan(dot)green(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> On 11/2/2025 7:05 AM, Christian Ullrich wrote:
>>>> the current MSVC compiler deems it necessary to issue
>>>> warning C4053: one void operand for '?:'
>>>> for a line with CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(). This boils down to this bit of
>>>> miscadmin.h (line 116 in master):
>>>>
>>>> #define INTERRUPTS_PENDING_CONDITION() \
>>>> (unlikely(UNBLOCKED_SIGNAL_QUEUE()) ?
>>>> pgwin32_dispatch_queued_signals() : 0, \
>>>> unlikely(InterruptPending))
>>>> #endif
>>>>
>>>> The C spec says that of the possible results of the :? operator, either
>>>> none or both can be void, and pgwin32_dispatch_queued_signals() is void
>>>> (and has been as far back as I can find it).
>>
>>> Yeah, this is a bug, or at least a spec violation. We should fix it in
>>> my opinion-- it's non-conforming C. Others may disagree, though.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>
>> Let's go with your #1 (casting the 0 to void).
>> But can't we simplify that to just
>>
>> #define INTERRUPTS_PENDING_CONDITION() \
>> (unlikely(UNBLOCKED_SIGNAL_QUEUE()) ?
>> pgwin32_dispatch_queued_signals() : (void) 0, \
>> unlikely(InterruptPending))
>> #endif
>>
>> that is, the only change needed is s/0/(void) 0/.
>
> +1
>
> Laurenz Albe

Option 1 works for me as well. Hopefully, it works for Christian as well.