Re: Question about bit.h and bit.c

From: Sailesh Krishnamurthy <sailesh(at)cs(dot)berkeley(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Question about bit.h and bit.c
Date: 2003-01-06 04:45:48
Message-ID: m3smw6yjgj.fsf@datafix.CS.Berkeley.EDU
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

Tom> Sailesh Krishnamurthy <sailesh(at)cs(dot)berkeley(dot)edu> writes:
>> Why is it that bit.h is in src/include/utils and bit.c is in
>> src/backend/lib ?

Tom> Possibly a more interesting question is why haven't we
Tom> ditched them both ... AFAICT none of the bit.c routines are
Tom> used anymore.

True. I just searched and found the only uses of the bitmask functions
(now greatly expanded) in our code :-)

--
Pip-pip
Sailesh
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~sailesh

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-01-06 06:07:17 Re: New Portal in Place, DNS switched ...
Previous Message Lamar Owen 2003-01-06 04:41:30 Re: Upgrading rant.