Re: [HACKERS] Size vs size_t - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Size vs size_t
Date
Msg-id 27349.1489702854@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Size vs size_t  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Size vs size_t  (Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>)
List pgsql-hackers
Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Naive replacement in new files (present in master but not in 9.6) with
> the attached script, followed by a couple of manual corrections where
> Size was really an English word in a comment, gets the attached diff.

In the case of mmgr/slab.c, a lot of those uses of Size probably
correspond to instantiations of the MemoryContext APIs; so blindly
changing them to "size_t" seems like a bit of a type violation
(and might indeed draw warnings from pickier compilers).  Don't
know if any of the other things you've identified here have similar
entanglements.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] multivariate statistics (v25)
Next
From: "MauMau"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] BUG #13755: pgwin32_is_service not checking if SECURITY_SERVICE_SID is disabled