| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fix volatile vs. pointer confusion |
| Date: | 2019-03-13 09:14:32 |
| Message-ID: | b43d380c-e3be-886b-6ed2-ca3cdba9f3f6@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-03-11 12:57, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Looking at recently committed 2e616dee9e60, we have introduced this:
>
> + volatile xmlBufferPtr buf = NULL;
> + volatile xmlNodePtr cur_copy = NULL;
>
> where the pointer-ness nature of the object is inside the typedef. I
> *suppose* that this is correct as written. There are a few occurrences
> of this pattern in eg. contrib/xml2.
I think this is correct, but I don't want to wreck my sanity trying to
understand the syntax-level details of why.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-03-13 09:31:50 | Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-03-13 09:13:28 | Re: Fix volatile vs. pointer confusion |