Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Hmm, need more caffeine I guess. I was thinking dword == long. But in
>>> any case, I'd feel a lot more comfortable if the patch ifdef'd the
>>> declaration of exit_status to match, rather than forcing a cast of the
>>> pointer value.
>
>> Hmm. I looked at that, but that kind of just moves things around.
>
>> If i change that variable to be DWORD, it still stuffs it into
>> statuses[i] three lines further down,
>
> Sure, but that's a plain old assignment that can cope with the two
> variables being of different widths, so long as the value to be assigned
> fits in both. (And if it doesn't, I trust you'll agree that the code is
> broken...) Casting at the call is simply going to misbehave, very
> nastily, if somehow the variable isn't of the width the function is
> expecting.
Ok. Seems reasonble to change it to a cast in that place instead - will do.
>> I guess the proper solution in that case is to #define a datatype used
>> for return codes. Is it really worth that for this, though?
>
> Probably not, although I seem to recall we have done that elsewhere
> (pg_ctl maybe?)
Yeah, we have done it in one or two places. I'll just go with the cast
per above for this time.
//Magnus
