On Sun, 2025-11-02 at 11:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Bryan Green <[email protected]> writes: > > On 11/2/2025 7:05 AM, Christian Ullrich wrote: > > > 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). > > > 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. > > Agreed. > > > Let's go with your #1 (casting the 0 to void). > But can't we simplify that to just > > #define INTERRUPTS_PENDING_CONDITION() \ > (unlikely(UNBLOCKED_SIGNAL_QUEUE()) ? > pgwin32_dispatch_queued_signals() : (void) 0, \ > unlikely(InterruptPending)) > #endif > > that is, the only change needed is s/0/(void) 0/.
+1 Laurenz Albe
