From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Large writable variables |
Date: | 2018-10-16 15:22:31 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYbL42rJbn3-fakviMurnnwS+p=rt5iXH8ccP+gQsZdMQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 2:30 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> This just reminded me that a couple times I wanted a cast that casts
> away const, but otherwise makes sure the type stays the same. I don't
> think there's a way to do that in C, but we can write one that verifies
> the cast doesn't do something bad if gcc is used:
>
> #if defined(HAVE__BUILTIN_TYPES_COMPATIBLE_P)
> #define unconstify(cst, var) StaticAssertExpr(__builtin_types_compatible_p(__typeof(var), const cst), "wrong cast"), (cst) (var)
> #else
> #define unconstify(cst, var) ((cst) (var))
> #endif
>
> Does anybody besides me see value in adding a cleaned up version of
> that?
Under what circumstances would we consider this to be a legitimate thing to use?
I think if we add something this, we'd better accompany it with some
detailed and very clearly-written statements about when you're allowed
to use it. Otherwise, I predict that people will use it in cases
where it's not actually safe, and we'll end up with low-grade bugs.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-10-16 16:06:12 | Re: Large writable variables |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-10-16 15:13:51 | Re: PG vs macOS Mojave |