Re: cleanup in code - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: cleanup in code
Date
Msg-id 13123.1389108023@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: cleanup in code  (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: cleanup in code  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> I think it will be like Andres said up thread, to stop multiple evaluations
> of the expression passed to the macro.

Exactly.  We are not going to risk multiple evals in a macro as commonly
used as elog/ereport; the risk/benefit ratio is just too high.

I don't see anything wrong with suppressing this warning by inserting
an additional return statement.  The code is already plastered with such
things, from the days before we had any unreachability hints in
elog/ereport.  And as I said upthread, there is no good reason to suppose
that the unreachability hints are always recognized by every compiler.
I take this behavior of MSVC as proof of that statement.

It is mildly curious that MSVC fails to understand the unreachability hint
here when it does so elsewhere, but for our purposes, that's a purely
academic question.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Christoph Berg
Date:
Subject: extra_float_digits and casting from real to numeric
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: generic pseudotype IO functions?