| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Zdenek Kotala" <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>, "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Is this portable? |
| Date: | 2007-04-02 21:30:58 |
| Message-ID: | 28899.1175549458@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> IIRC there's something odd about the scope of the declared struct label.
> Something like it previously extended to the end of the file but post-ANSI was
> limited to the scope it's declared in (including very limited scopes where it
> would be useless such as in function parameters).
I think you might be thinking of the use of a previously unreferenced
"struct foo" in a function declaration's parameter list, which is
something that did change (and so gcc warns about it). But within a
block is not that case.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-02 21:32:52 | Re: CheckpointStartLock starvation |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-04-02 21:27:23 | Re: Invalid to_date patterns (was: [PATCHES] [GENERAL] ISO week dates) |