Hi, On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 8:52 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > didier <did...@gmail.com> writes: > > Trivial patch: > > - remove a gcc warning (since commit 7a0574b5) > > expression which evaluates to zero treated as a null pointer constant of > > type 'HeapTuple' (aka 'struct HeapTupleData *') > > Hmm, the initializations "HeapTuple newtuple = false" are certainly > bogus-looking and not per project style; I wonder who's to blame for > those? (I do not see what 7a0574b5 would have had to do with it; > that didn't affect any backend code.)
My mistake it's not gcc but clang for JIT, maybe because it could change false definition? clang version: 6.0.0-1ubuntu2 clang -E output before 7a0574b5 HeapTuple newtuple = 0; with 7a0574b5 HeapTuple newtuple = ((bool) 0); > > > - always use "if (newtuple == NULL)" rather than mixing !newtuple and > > newtuple == NULL > > Don't particularly agree with these changes though. "if (!ptr)" is > a very common C idiom, and no programmer would tolerate a compiler > that warned about it. There's no warning, it's stylistic. In the same function there's both forms a couple of lines apart: "if (!ptr)" follow by "if (ptr == NULL)", using only one form is smother on the brain, at least mine. Regards Didier
