Re: Small miscellaneus fixes (Part II)
От | John Naylor |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Small miscellaneus fixes (Part II) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFBsxsEhZCcN2_-sJZgopJ2khqp1wAtjS3Ziery35OxDtssNWg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Small miscellaneus fixes (Part II) (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Small miscellaneus fixes (Part II)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 8:08 AM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
> Makes sense now (in your first message, you said that the problem was
> with "sign", and the patch didn't address the actual problem in
> IS_PLUS()).
>
> One can look and find that the unreachable code was introduced at
> 7a3e7b64a.
>
> With your proposed change, the unreachable line is hit by regression
> tests, which is an improvment. As is the change to pg_dump.c.
But that now reachable line just unsets a flag that we previously found unset, right?
And if that line was unreachable, then surely the previous flag-clearing operation is too?
5669 994426 : if (IS_MINUS(Np->Num)) // <- also always false
5670 0 : Np->Num->flag &= ~NUM_F_MINUS;
5671 : }
5672 524 : else if (Np->sign != '+' && IS_PLUS(Np->Num))
5673 0 : Np->Num->flag &= ~NUM_F_PLUS;
https://coverage.postgresql.org/src/backend/utils/adt/formatting.c.gcov.html
5670 0 : Np->Num->flag &= ~NUM_F_MINUS;
5671 : }
5672 524 : else if (Np->sign != '+' && IS_PLUS(Np->Num))
5673 0 : Np->Num->flag &= ~NUM_F_PLUS;
https://coverage.postgresql.org/src/backend/utils/adt/formatting.c.gcov.html
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: