From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Tree-walker callbacks vs -Wdeprecated-non-prototype |
Date: | 2022-09-19 04:32:59 |
Message-ID: | CA+hUKGL=dNzs7h85xq1UiHWVRU7+DYrqFkC4J4VZp_s2KD1dMA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 3:39 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 8:57 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> ... This is fairly annoying, in that it gives up the function
> >> type safety the C committee wants to impose on us; but I really think
> >> the data type safety that we're giving up in this version of the patch
> >> is a worse hazard.
>
> > But is it defined behaviour?
> > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/559581/casting-a-function-pointer-to-another-type
>
> Well, what we're talking about is substituting "void *" (which is
> required to be compatible with "char *") for a struct pointer type.
> Standards legalese aside, that could only be a problem if the platform
> ABI handles "char *" differently from struct pointer types. The last
> architecture I can remember dealing with where that might actually be
> a thing was the PDP-10. Everybody has learned better since then, but
> the C committee is apparently still intent on making the world safe
> for crappy machine architectures.
>
> Also, if you want to argue that "void *" is not compatible with struct
> pointer types, then it's not real clear to me that we aren't full of
> other spec violations, because we sure do a lot of casting across that
> (and even more with this patch as it stands).
>
> I don't have the slightest hesitation about saying that if there's
> still an architecture out there that's like that, we won't support it.
> I also note that our existing code in this area would break pretty
> thoroughly on such a machine, so this isn't making it worse.
Yeah, I don't expect it to be a practical problem on any real system
(that is, I don't expect any real calling convention to transfer a
struct T * argument in a different place than void *). I just wanted
to mention that it's a new liberty. It's one thing to cast struct T *
to void * and back before dereferencing, and another to cast a pointer
to a function that takes struct T * to a pointer to a function that
takes void * and call it. I considered proposing that myself when
first reporting this problem, but fear of language lawyers put me off.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John Naylor | 2022-09-19 04:42:39 | Re: Typo in xact.c |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2022-09-19 04:17:19 | Re: Making C function declaration parameter names consistent with corresponding definition names |