On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
It also strikes me that we ought to take this as a warning sign
that we need to work on getting rid of coding like the above in favor
of genuine "flexible arrays", before the gcc boys think of some other
overly-cute optimization based on the assumption that an array declared
with a fixed size really is fixed.
The traditional argument against that has been that that's a C99
feature. However, since it appears that even MSVC supports flexible
arrays (which are described as a "Microsoft extension", so may not
have identical semantics), it might be possible to do this across the
board without contorting the code with preprocessor hacks. That's
something that I'd certainly be in favor of pursuing.


--
Peter Geoghegan

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Previous

Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 2 of 18 | next ›
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-hackers @
categoriespostgresql
postedApr 5, '13 at 10:14p
activeJul 23, '13 at 8:30a
posts18
users7
websitepostgresql.org...
irc#postgresql

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase