From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Avoid undefined behavior with msvc compiler (src/include/port/pg_bitutils.h) |
Date: | 2023-07-31 10:57:48 |
Message-ID: | 2880968.1690801068@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at 9:45 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> That's basically equivalent to the existing Assert(non_zero).
>> I think it'd be okay to drop that one and instead have
>> the same Assert condition as other platforms, but having both
>> would be redundant.
> Works for me, so done that way for both forward and reverse variants. Since
> the return value is no longer checked in any builds, I thought about
> removing the variable containing it, but it seems best to leave it behind
> for clarity since these are not our functions.
Hmm, aren't you risking "variable is set but not used" warnings?
Personally I'd have made these like
(void) _BitScanReverse(&result, word);
Anybody trying to understand this code is going to have to look up
the man page for _BitScanReverse anyway, so I'm not sure that
keeping the variable adds much readability.
However, if no version of MSVC actually issues such a warning,
it's moot.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2023-07-31 11:34:47 | Re: logical decoding and replication of sequences, take 2 |
Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2023-07-31 10:29:29 | Re: Support to define custom wait events for extensions |