On 2019-03-11 08:23, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Variables used after a longjmp() need to be declared volatile. In
> case of a pointer, it's the pointer itself that needs to be declared
> volatile, not the pointed-to value. So we need
>
> PyObject *volatile items;
>
> instead of
>
> vola
On 2019-03-11 12:57, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Looking at recently committed 2e616dee9e60, we have introduced this:
>
> + volatile xmlBufferPtr buf = NULL;
> + volatile xmlNodePtr cur_copy = NULL;
>
> where the pointer-ness nature of the object is inside the typedef. I
> *suppose* that
On 2019-03-11 09:31, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 08:23:39AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Attached patch fixes a couple of cases of that. Most instances were
>> already correct.
>
> It seems to me that you should look at that:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20190
On 2019-Mar-11, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Variables used after a longjmp() need to be declared volatile. In
> case of a pointer, it's the pointer itself that needs to be declared
> volatile, not the pointed-to value. So we need
>
> PyObject *volatile items;
>
> instead of
>
> volatile
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 08:23:39AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Attached patch fixes a couple of cases of that. Most instances were
> already correct.
It seems to me that you should look at that:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20190308055911.gg4...@paquier.xyz
They treat about the same
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 08:18:55 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Fix volatile vs. pointer confusion
Variables used after a longjmp() need to be declared volatile. In
case of a pointer, it's the pointer itself that needs to be declared
volatile, not the pointed-to value. So we need
PyObject *
