From: | Christian Kruse <christian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Suspicion of a compiler bug in clang: using ternary operator in ereport() |
Date: | 2014-01-30 09:25:05 |
Message-ID: | 20140130092505.GH3557@defunct.ch |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 30/01/14 10:15, Andres Freund wrote:
> > While I understand most modifications I'm a little bit confused by
> > some parts. Have a look at for example this one:
> >
> > + *errstr = psprintf(_("failed to look up effective user id %ld: %s"),
> > + (long) user_id,
> > + errno ? strerror(errno) : _("user does not exist"));
> >
> > Why is it safe here to use errno? It is possible that the _() function
> > changes errno, isn't it?
>
> But the evaluation order is strictly defined here, no? First the boolean
> check for errno, then *either* strerror(errno), *or* the _().
Have a look at the psprintf() call: we first have a _("failed to look
up effective user id %ld: %s") as an argument, then we have a (long)
user_id and after that we have a ternary expression using errno. Isn't
it possible that the first _() changes errno?
Best regards,
--
Christian Kruse http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeevan Chalke | 2014-01-30 09:31:51 | Re: patch: option --if-exists for pg_dump |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-01-30 09:15:21 | Re: Suspicion of a compiler bug in clang: using ternary operator in ereport() |