From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: taking stdbool.h into use |
Date: | 2017-10-26 20:53:56 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQ0mok+6VkJ06xdB74pgqbuAOnwkHvmBWQWU58bsSPOVg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> I gave this a quick run, to see if my compiler would complain for things
> like this:
>
> bool isprimary = flags & INDEX_CREATE_IS_PRIMARY;
>
> (taken from the first patch at
> https://postgr.es/m/20171023161503.ohkybquxrlech7d7@alvherre.pgsql )
>
> which is assigning a value other than 1/0 to a bool variable without an
> explicit cast. I thought it would provoke a warning, but it does not.
> Is that expected? Is my compiler too old/new?
It seems to me that this proves the point of the proposed patch. You
had better use a zero-equality comparison for such bitwise operation,
and so you ought to do that:
bool isprimary = (flags & INDEX_CREATE_IS_PRIMARY) != 0;
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-10-26 20:56:33 | Re: proposal: custom autovacuum entries |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-10-26 20:47:35 | Re: proposal: custom autovacuum entries |