Re: C nitpick about pgwin32_dispatch_queued_signals()

[Bryan Green]

On 11/2/2025 7:05 AM, Christian Ullrich wrote:
Hello,
the current MSVC compiler deems it necessary to issue

        warning C4053: one void operand for '?:'

for a line with CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(). This boils down to this bit of
miscadmin.h (line 116 in master):

        #define INTERRUPTS_PENDING_CONDITION() \
                (unlikely(UNBLOCKED_SIGNAL_QUEUE()) ?
                        pgwin32_dispatch_queued_signals() : 0, \
                 unlikely(InterruptPending))
        #endif

The C spec says that of the possible results of the :? operator, either
none or both can be void, and pgwin32_dispatch_queued_signals() is void
(and has been as far back as I can find it).

Does that matter?


Yeah, this is a bug, or at least a spec violation.  We should fix it in 
my opinion-- it's non-conforming C. Others may disagree, though.

It happens to work because the comma operator discards the result 
anyway, but MSVC is right to complain.

This isn't a new thing with modern C standards, BTW --- the rule
about not mixing void and non-void operands in ?: has been there
since C89.  We've just been getting away with it because most
compilers don't complain when the result is discarded by the
comma operator anyway.

I see a couple of ways to fix it:

1. Cast both arms to void:

    #define INTERRUPTS_PENDING_CONDITION() \
        (unlikely(UNBLOCKED_SIGNAL_QUEUE()) ? \
            (pgwin32_dispatch_queued_signals(), (void)0) : (void)0, \
         unlikely(InterruptPending))

2. Restructure to use && instead of ?::

    #define INTERRUPTS_PENDING_CONDITION() \
        (unlikely(UNBLOCKED_SIGNAL_QUEUE()) && \
            (pgwin32_dispatch_queued_signals(), true), \
         unlikely(InterruptPending))

3. Just make it an inline function instead of a macro.

I'd lean towards #2 --- it's cleaner and avoids the whole issue.
The semantics are the same since we're only calling the function
for its side-effects.

Thoughts?

Bryan Green