Re: static assert cleanup

2022-12-15 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 09.12.22 11:01, John Naylor wrote: On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 2:47 PM Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > > 0003-Move-some-static-assertions-to-better-places.patch > > This moves some that I thought were suboptimally placed but it could be > debated or ref

Re: static assert cleanup

2022-12-14 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 11.12.22 23:18, Peter Smith wrote: +StaticAssertDecl(SysCacheSize == (int) lengthof(cacheinfo), + "SysCacheSize does not match syscache.c's array"); + static CatCache *SysCache[SysCacheSize]; In almost every example I found of StaticAssertXXX, the lengthof(arr) part came first in the condit

Re: static assert cleanup

2022-12-11 Thread Peter Smith
On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 6:47 PM Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > A number of static assertions could be moved to better places. > > We first added StaticAssertStmt() in 2012, which required all static > assertions to be inside function bodies. We then added > StaticAssertDecl() in 2020, which enabled s

Re: static assert cleanup

2022-12-09 Thread John Naylor
On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 2:47 PM Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > 0003-Move-some-static-assertions-to-better-places.patch > > This moves some that I thought were suboptimally placed but it could be > debated or refined. + * We really want ItemPointerData to be exactly

static assert cleanup

2022-12-08 Thread Peter Eisentraut
A number of static assertions could be moved to better places. We first added StaticAssertStmt() in 2012, which required all static assertions to be inside function bodies. We then added StaticAssertDecl() in 2020, which enabled static assertions on file level. We have a number of calls that