Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers for nulls/values arrays

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 12:10 PM Smith, Peter <peters(at)fast(dot)au(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
wrote:

> From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> Sent: Friday, 4 October 2019 2:08 PM
>
> >> #define INIT_ALL_ELEMS_ZERO {0}
> >> #define INIT_ALL_ELEMS_FALSE {false}
>
> >I would say that's 100% wrong. The entire point here is that it's
> memset-equivalent, and therefore writes zeroes, regardless of what the
> datatype is.
>
> I agree it is memset-equivalent.
>
> All examples of the memset code that INIT_ALL_ELEMS_ZERO replaces looked
> like this:
> memset(values, 0, sizeof(values));
>
> Most examples of the memset code that INIT_ALL_ELEMS_FALSE replaces looked
> like this:
> memset(nulls, false, sizeof(nulls));
>
> ~
>
> I made the 2nd macro because I anticipate the same folk that don't like
> setting 0 to a bool will also not like setting something called
> INIT_ALL_ELEMS_ZERO to a bool array.
>
> How about I just define them both the same?
> #define INIT_ALL_ELEMS_ZERO {0}
> #define INIT_ALL_ELEMS_FALSE {0}
>
>
I think using one define would be preferred, but you can wait and see if
others prefer defining different macros for the same thing.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com