On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 5:57 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> John Naylor writes:
> > Works for me, so done that way for both forward and reverse variants.
Since
> > the return value is no longer checked in any builds, I thought about
> > removing the variable containing it, but it seems best to leave it
John Naylor writes:
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at 9:45 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> That's basically equivalent to the existing Assert(non_zero).
>> I think it'd be okay to drop that one and instead have
>> the same Assert condition as other platforms, but having both
>> would be redundant.
> Works for me,
On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at 9:45 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> John Naylor writes:
> > It seems that we should have "Assert(word != 0);" at the top, which
matches
> > the other platforms anyway, so I'll add that.
>
> That's basically equivalent to the existing Assert(non_zero).
> I think it'd be okay to dro
John Naylor writes:
> It seems that we should have "Assert(word != 0);" at the top, which matches
> the other platforms anyway, so I'll add that.
That's basically equivalent to the existing Assert(non_zero).
I think it'd be okay to drop that one and instead have
the same Assert condition as other
On Sat, Jul 29, 2023 at 7:37 PM Ranier Vilela wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The pg_leftmost_one_pos32 function with msvc compiler,
> relies on Assert to guarantee the correct result.
>
> But msvc documentation [1] says clearly that
> undefined behavior can occur.
It seems that we should have "Assert(word !=
Hi,
The pg_leftmost_one_pos32 function with msvc compiler,
relies on Assert to guarantee the correct result.
But msvc documentation [1] says clearly that
undefined behavior can occur.
Fix by checking the result of the function to avoid
a possible undefined behavior.
patch attached.
best regard
