| From: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Use func(void) for functions with no parameters |
| Date: | 2025-12-03 15:53:37 |
| Message-ID: | aTBdAYRqO5vYx0hd@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 03, 2025 at 10:15:41AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I noticed the only changes here are for `static` definitions. Are we
> > just more careful with normal functions, or does the compiler complain
> > more easily about such "incomplete" definitions when they're in
> > headers or need to be linked against?
>
> Some years ago we had a buildfarm animal that would complain about
> this construct, so the tree used to be clean. Probably it's just
> chance that these have only snuck into local functions.
Thank you both for looking at it!
The buildfarm animal remark makes me think to check with -Wstrict-prototypes
and -Wold-style-definition. I just did that and found two more (added in v2
attached) that the coccinelle script missed...
Those new two (run_apply_worker() and usage()) are also static, so that's just
chance.
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v2-0001-Use-func-void-for-functions-with-no-parameters.patch | text/x-diff | 6.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2025-12-03 15:55:40 | Re: Remove useless pointer advance in StatsShmemInit() |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2025-12-03 15:52:51 | Re: Minor LLVM cleanups |