From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Getting rid of warnings |
Date: | 2007-01-25 16:11:06 |
Message-ID: | 20070125161106.GB8071@svr2.hagander.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 10:57:29AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> > bool
> > ! isort(int4 *a, int len)
> > {
> > bool
> > ! isort(int4 *a, const int len)
> > {
>
> If VC thinks that that is required to fix a warning, it's too broken to live.
> AFAICS what you've got there is a compiler that is being pedantically
> strict about language details that it does not actually understand well;
> its apparent idea that "const **" means "const * const *" being much in
> the same line as this one.
Not sure I understand.
The header had:
isort(int4 *a, const int len)
and the code had
isort(int4 *a, int len)
Where does the ** part come in there? It's not even a pointer!
I see the ** part for the free()/pfree() issues, but the one you're
quoting there is completely different. This is, AFAICS, a case of the
header not matching the body.
I'm fine with having that one rejected as well, and weill just file that
away as an expected-please-ignore warning, but I'd prefer to understand
why :)
//Magnus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2007-01-25 16:15:15 | Re: tsearch in core patch, for inclusion |
Previous Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2007-01-25 16:06:16 | Re: tsearch in core patch, for inclusion |