On 2017-03-17 15:29:27 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > On 2017-03-17 15:17:33 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> >> Why do we warn of a hazard here instead of eliminating said hazard
> >> with a static inline function declaration in executor.h?
> >
> > Presumably because it was written long before we started relying on
> > inline functions :/
>
> Right. git blame says it was changed in 2004.
>
> >> /*
> >> * ExecEvalExpr was formerly a function containing a switch statement;
> >> * now it's just a macro invoking the function pointed to by an ExprState
> >> * node. Beware of double evaluation of the ExprState argument!
> >> */
> >> #define ExecEvalExpr(expr, econtext, isNull) \
> >> ((*(expr)->evalfunc) (expr, econtext, isNull))
> >>
> >> Should I change that to a static inline function doing exactly what
> >> the macro does? In the absence of multiple evaluations of a
> >> parameter with side effects, modern versions of gcc have generated
> >> the same code for a macro versus a static inline function, at least
> >> in the cases I checked.
> >
> > I'm absolutely not against changing this to an inline function, but I'd
> > prefer if that code weren't touched quite right now, there's a large
> > pending patch of mine in the area. If you don't mind, I'll just include
> > the change there, rather than have a conflict?
>
> Fine with me.
For posterities sake: I've indeed done so.
- Andres
