| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: execl() sentinel |
| Date: | 2007-07-18 14:16:01 |
| Message-ID: | 17954.1184768161@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's too bad that gcc doesn't have a
>> -Wno-snarkiness-about-system-headers-thank-you switch.
> It does have a switch to *add* snarkiness about system headers, but does
> not do it by default.
> The problem in this case is that an uncast null pointer constant is not
> always a sufficient sentinel for variadic functions, as explained here:
> <http://c-faq.com/null/null2.html>.
Sure, but on a machine where it actually matters (ie one where int and
pointer are of different sizes), I'd expect NULL to be #define'd as
"((void *) 0)" not just "0". You should *not* have to inform the
machine that NULL is a pointer.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2007-07-18 14:59:34 | Re: execl() sentinel |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-07-18 10:43:36 | Re: HOT latest patch - version 8 |