Peter Geoghegan <pe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 3 August 2011 15:29, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> There is another point here, though, which is that if we're not sure
>> whether the compiler considers ExecStatusType to be signed or unsigned,
>> then we have no idea what the test "status < PGRES_EMPTY_QUERY" even
>> means.
> I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by this.
I mean that it's unclear what you'll get if status has a bitpattern
equivalent to a negative integer. If the compiler implements the
comparison as signed, the test will yield TRUE; if unsigned, it's FALSE.
>> So I think the most reasonable fix is probably
>>
>> if ((unsigned int) status >= sizeof pgresStatus / sizeof
>> pgresStatus[0])
>>
>> which is sufficient to cover both directions, since if status is passed
>> as -1 then it will convert to a large unsigned value. It's also a
>> natural expression of what we really want, ie, that the integer
>> equivalent of the enum value is in range.
> I'm not convinced that that is an improvement to rely on the
> conversion doing so, but it's not as if I feel very strongly about it.
The C standard specifies that signed-to-unsigned conversions must work
like that; and even if the standard didn't, it would surely work like
that on any machine with two's-complement representation, which is to
say every computer built in the last forty years or so. So I don't find
it a questionable assumption.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
