Alvaro Herrera wrote:
We have plenty of very ugly macros anyway. See fastgetattr(),
HeapKeyTest(), HeapTupleSatisfies(), HeapTupleHeaderSetXmax and friends,
Assert() and friends.
I don't think Assert() is too bad, but I agree some of the others are a
bit ugly. In some places where we would like t
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 11:46:04AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Actually, what I'm more "worried" about is the optimizations added to 4.x
> ... I know, for instance, that with FreeBSD's kernel, for the longest time
> you couldn't use the higher optimizations in 3.x, since it would cause
> "
> -Original Message-
> From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 9:46 AM
> To: Dave Held
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Woo hoo ... a whole new set of compiler
> headaches!! :)
>
> [...]
&g
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:pgsql-hackers-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Dunstan
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 10:46 AM
> To: Dave Held
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Woo hoo ... a whole new set
> -Original Message-
> From: Alvaro Herrera [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 12:06 PM
> To: Tom Lane
> Cc: Dave Held; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Woo hoo ... a whole new set of compiler
> headaches!! :)
>
> [
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 1:22 PM
> To: Dave Held
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Woo hoo ... a whole new set of compiler
> headaches!! :)
>
> [...]
> And not muc
> -Original Message-
> From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 11:42 AM
> To: Dave Held
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Woo hoo ... a whole new set of compiler
> headaches!! :)
>
> [...]
> Uhm
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Dunstan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 3:49 PM
> To: Dave Held
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Woo hoo ... a whole new set of compiler
> headaches!! :)
>
> [...]
> I rec
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Dunstan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 4:29 PM
> To: Dave Held
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Woo hoo ... a whole new set of compiler
> headaches!! :)
>
> [...]
>
Dave Held wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Alvaro Herrera [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 12:06 PM
To: Tom Lane
Cc: Dave Held; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Woo hoo ... a whole new set of compiler
headaches!! :)
[...]
Why don't we re
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> With GCC 4.x, there are new optimizations, and a while new set of
> "unknowns" that we're going to possibly get bug reports for ... and, it
> *is* a .0 major release for GCC, so there are bound to be bugs in their
> optimizer also, and I know ther
I think that's great news! If the code is written in a conforming way,
I don't see why a new release would be a cause for headaches. And if
new compiler releases *are* a cause for headaches, it doesn't give me
great confidence in the codebase.
Uhmmm that isn't always true. The switch from 2.x to
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 11:58:44AM +1000, Neil Conway wrote:
> Dave Held wrote:
> >Consider inline functions. In C, you have to implement them as
> >macros
>
> No -- inline functions are in C99, and of course there have been GCC
> extensions with similar (but not identical) semantics for many ye
"Dave Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yeah, that's good news too, though it definitely helps that
> Postgres is written in C. Most of the conformance improvements
> are in the C++ front-end and the C++ Standard Library. Still
> no export though. I personally believe that projects should
> m
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Dave Held wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 8:56 AM
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: [HACKERS] Woo hoo ... a whole new set of compiler headaches!!
:)
GCC 4.0.0 has been released.
[...]
I thin
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 10:56 AM
> To: Dave Held
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Woo hoo ... a whole new set of compiler
> headaches!! :)
>
> [...]
> I dun
> -Original Message-
> From: Dann Corbit [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 1:08 PM
> To: Andrew Dunstan; Dave Held
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Woo hoo ... a whole new set of compiler
> headaches!!
>
&g
l 22, 2005 1:59 PM
> > To: Dave Held
> > Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Woo hoo ... a whole new set of compiler
> > headaches!! :)
> >
> > [...]
> > I think there are some features we could use in C++. As a simple
> > examp
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Dave Held wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 9:46 AM
To: Dave Held
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Woo hoo ... a whole new set of compiler
headaches!! :)
[...]
With GCC 4.x
Dave Held wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Dunstan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 3:49 PM
To: Dave Held
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Woo hoo ... a whole new set of compiler
headaches!! :)
[...]
I recall saying something like this
"Dave Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [ much snipped... ]
> And because the vast majority of C programs are also correct C++
> programs, it really wouldn't be that much effort to port the code.
And not much reward, either. To actually get benefit commensurate
with the risks involved, we'd nee
Dave Held wrote:
Consider inline functions. In C, you have to implement them as
macros
No -- inline functions are in C99, and of course there have been GCC
extensions with similar (but not identical) semantics for many years.
-Neil
---(end of broadcast)---
Dave Held wrote:
> > we'd need to do some wholesale revisions of internal APIs and
> > coding practices.
>
> No you wouldn't. You could make incremental revisions that offer a
> very gentle learning curve to C++. My suggestion is to convert the
> codebase iteratively, taking only small sure ste
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 11:56:13AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Dave Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Yeah, that's good news too, though it definitely helps that
> > Postgres is written in C. Most of the conformance improvements
> > are in the C++ front-end and the C++ Standard Library. Still
>
"Dave Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I suspect most people here are already well aware of the
>> advantages and disadvantages of C++.
> That's where we disagree. In my experience, most C++ programmers
> know C, but most C programmers only know C++ through second-hand
> knowledge. And th
> -Original Message-
> From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 10:17 AM
> To: Dave Held
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Woo hoo ... a whole new set of compiler
> headaches!! :)
>
> [...]
&
Dave Held wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 1:59 PM
To: Dave Held
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Woo hoo ... a whole new set of compiler
headaches!! :)
[...]
I think there are some features we
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 1:59 PM
> To: Dave Held
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Woo hoo ... a whole new set of compiler
> headaches!! :)
>
> [...]
> I th
> -Original Message-
> From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 8:56 AM
> To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: [HACKERS] Woo hoo ... a whole new set of compiler headaches!!
> :)
>
> GCC 4.0.0 has been released.
> [...]
I think that's great new
29 matches
Mail list logo
