From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: fastgetattr & isNull |
Date: | 2010-01-06 18:40:24 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f071001061040mb0b755fp6047cbb6532a3def@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Well, that comment is a bit misleading too, since a pointer with a
>> NULL value might work but a literal NULL certainly doesn't.
>
> I think "(bool *) NULL" would work. What your compiler is complaining
> about is trying to dereference a "void *" expression.
>
> In practice, the people we'd need to reach with a comment would be ones
> who had working code before --- and working code, in this context, would
> most likely be code that was passing a pointer variable that contained
> null. But as I said, I don't think it really requires any comment.
I was less thinking of people whose code might break and more thinking
of people who might be trying to understand the preconditions for
using the macro. But on further reflection I think a lot more
documentation would be needed to really make that clear, so I'll skip
it for now.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-06 18:41:36 | Re: snapshot generation broken again... |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-06 18:38:59 | Re: fastgetattr & isNull |