Re: Tree-walker callbacks vs -Wdeprecated-non-prototype

On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 10:16 AM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 8:57 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > BTW, I was distressed to discover that someone decided they could
> > use ExecShutdownNode as a planstate_tree_walker() walker even though
> > its argument list is not even the right length. I'm a bit flabbergasted
> > that we seem to have gotten away with that so far, because I'd have
> > thought for sure that it'd break some platform's convention for which
> > argument gets passed where. I think we need to fix that, independently
> > of what we do about the larger scope of these problems. To avoid an
> > API break, I propose making ExecShutdownNode just be a one-liner that
> > calls an internal ExecShutdownNode_walker() function. (I've not done
> > it that way in the attached, though.)
>
> Huh... wouldn't systems that pass arguments right-to-left on the stack
> receive NULL for node? That'd include the SysV i386 convention used
> on Linux, *BSD etc. But that can't be right or we'd know about it...

I take that back after looking up some long forgotten details; it
happily ignores extra arguments.