| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why does load_external_function() return PGFunction? |
| Date: | 2018-05-10 20:41:53 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZSws3VtWPvxKW5ch6VnGrNuvAooVuZi=E_=nwujJ369Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> I dug up a thread about the introduction of the warning:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-10/msg00423.html
>
> Sounds like we should add something like
> typedef void (*GenericFuncPtr) (void);
> or such? Similar to what Tom proposed upthread.
His proposal was void (*)() rather than void (*)(void). I see that
the email to which you linked expects the latter, but I guess I would
have expected the former to be an intentional statement that we don't
know what the parameter list is. My expectations may be wrong,
though, or just irrelevant.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-05-10 20:45:59 | Re: Why does load_external_function() return PGFunction? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-05-10 20:37:03 | Re: Proposal: http2 wire format |