Re: Back branches vs. gcc 4.8.0
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Back branches vs. gcc 4.8.0 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 15087.1365202206@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Back branches vs. gcc 4.8.0 (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Back branches vs. gcc 4.8.0
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> writes: > Are you proposing that we use the FLEXIBLE_ARRAY_MEMBER macro in every > single place where we currently use the one element array pattern? Yup, exactly. > I count one place where we currently use FLEXIBLE_ARRAY_MEMBER. It'd be > pretty ugly to have that everywhere, in my opinion. Hm, I see 4 places in HEAD. But in any case, is int16 values[1]; /* VARIABLE LENGTH ARRAY */ } int2vector; /* VARIABLE LENGTH STRUCT */ really better than int16 values[FLEXIBLE_ARRAY_MEMBER]; } int2vector; ? I don't think so. Relying on comments to tell about critical semantics of a data structure isn't really nice if you can do it in a way that is standards-blessed and (some) compilers understand. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: