Em qua., 27 de set. de 2023 às 04:35, David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> escreveu:
> On Wed, 27 Sept 2023 at 06:10, Ranier Vilela <ranier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > As suggested, casting is the best option that does not add any overhead > and improves the robustness of the find_base_rel function. > > I propose patch v1, with the additional addition of fixing the > find_base_rel_ignore_join function, > > which despite not appearing in Coverity reports, suffers from the same > problem. > > Can you confirm that this silences the Converity warning? > CID#1518088 This is a historical version of the file displaying the issue before it was in the Fixed state. > I think it probably warrants a comment to mention why we cast to uint32. > > e.g. /* perform an unsigned comparison so that we also catch negative > relid values */ > I'm ok. > > > Taking advantage, I also propose a scope reduction, > > as well as the const of the root parameter, which is very appropriate. > > Can you explain why adding the const qualifier is "very appropriate" > to catching negative relids? > Of course that has nothing to do with it. > Please check [1] for the mention of: > > "The fastest way to get your patch rejected is to make unrelated > changes. Reformatting lines that haven't changed, changing unrelated > comments you felt were poorly worded, touching code not necessary to > your change, etc. Each patch should have the minimum set of changes > required to work robustly. If you do not follow the code formatting > suggestions above, expect your patch to be returned to you with the > feedback of "follow the code conventions", quite likely without any > other review." > Forgive my impulsiveness, anyone who loves perfect, well written code, would understand. Do you have an objection to fixing the function find_base_rel_ignore_join? Or is it included in unrelated changes? Ranier Vilela
