Adam Lee writes:
> That's fine actually, but if we put the PG_TRY()/CATCH() in a loop, high
> version gcc might complain.
I'd be inclined to say "so don't do that then". Given this interpretation
(which sure looks like a bug to me, gcc maintainers' opinion or no),
you're basically going to have
Hi, hackers
"The local variables that do not have the volatile type and have been changed
between the setjmp() invocation and longjmp() call are indeterminate". This is
what the POSIX (and C standard for setjmp) says.
That's fine actually, but if we put the PG_TRY()/CATCH() in a loop, high
versio
