On 2013-04-05 23:28:03 +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
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.
The respective macro magic is already in place, its just not used in all
places. The problem is more that we can't easily use it in all places
because e.g. in the one case mentioned here the array isn't in the last
place *in the back branches*.


Andres Freund

  Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
  PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 5 of 18 | next ›
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-hackers @
postedApr 5, '13 at 10:14p
activeJul 23, '13 at 8:30a



site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase