John Naylor writes:
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 6:04 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> In short, I think we ought to apply and perhaps back-patch something
>> like the attached.
> Seems like reasonable defensive coding and consistency.
Thanks for looking at it.
> I'd be okay with keeping the original commen
On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 6:04 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> In short, I think we ought to apply and perhaps back-patch something
> like the attached.
Seems like reasonable defensive coding and consistency.
-/* return computed value, to prevent the above being optimized away */
+/* else this func
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> On Sunday, March 16, 2025, Steven Niu wrote:
>> +# is missing, we must link not just compile, and store the results in
>> global
> I’d probably add a comma before the “not” though. Or maybe: we must also
> link and store the results in global
A comma there wouldn'
On Sunday, March 16, 2025, Steven Niu wrote:
>
> +# is missing, we must link not just compile, and store the results in
> global
>
> The "compile" should be "compiler"?
>
No. Compile is the verb that pairs with link. Compiler is a noun, its
compliment being the linker.
I’d probably add a comm
Steven Niu writes:
> +# is missing, we must link not just compile, and store the results in
> global
> The "compile" should be "compiler"?
I think it's okay as-is: "link" and "compile" are both being used
as verbs. We could say "run the compiler", but that's longer
without being better.
Besid
+# is missing, we must link not just compile, and store the results in
global
The "compile" should be "compiler"?
Regards,
Steven
在 2025/3/15 7:04, Tom Lane 写道:
I noticed that our configuration-time checks for the presence
of CRC intrinsics generally look like
unsigned int crc = 0;
