From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: clang 15 doesn't like our JIT code |
Date: | 2022-09-16 23:15:51 |
Message-ID: | 3912521.1663370151@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> there's also the walker stuff[1] to address.
Yeah. I just did some experimentation with that, and it looks like
neither gcc nor clang will cut you any slack at all for declaring
an argument as "void *": given say
typedef bool (*tree_walker_callback) (Node *node, void *context);
the walker functions also have to be declared with exactly "void *"
as their second argument. So it's going to be just as messy and
full-of-casts as we feared. Still, I'm not sure we have any
alternative.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-09-16 23:19:51 | Re: Making C function declaration parameter names consistent with corresponding definition names |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2022-09-16 22:42:13 | Making C function declaration parameter names consistent with corresponding definition names |