| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(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 |
| Subject: | Re: Back branches vs. gcc 4.8.0 |
| Date: | 2013-04-05 22:44:05 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQ-J15iP7P9KrrPXO_NqgxAyXDgk1DEP4UhoEfeXPvNOA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> The respective macro magic is already in place, its just not used in all
> places. The problem is more that we can't easily use it in all places
> because e.g. in the one case mentioned here the array isn't in the last
> place *in the back branches*.
Are you proposing that we use the FLEXIBLE_ARRAY_MEMBER macro in every
single place where we currently use the one element array pattern? I
count one place where we currently use FLEXIBLE_ARRAY_MEMBER. It'd be
pretty ugly to have that everywhere, in my opinion.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-04-05 22:45:04 | Re: Back branches vs. gcc 4.8.0 |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-04-05 22:39:49 | Re: matview scannability rehash (was Re: Drastic performance loss in assert-enabled build in HEAD) |