> I didn't do it for performance, but because I find the function easier
> to read that way. We could change it back.
>
> It's a pretty scary thought that a compiler might misoptimize that
> though. In the same function we have 'nullFlags', too, as a local
> variable, even before this commit. Not sure why Coverity doesn't
> complain about that.
>
>> /*
>> * PointerGetDatum
>> * Returns datum representation for a pointer.
>> */
>> static inline Datum
>> PointerGetDatum(const void *X)
>> {
>> return (Datum) (uintptr_t) X;
>> }
>
> Hmm, is that 'const' incorrect? This function doesn't modify *X, but the
> resulting address will be used to modify it. Maybe changing it to non-
> const "void *X" would give Coverity a hint.
Ah, that could be it.
Is there a way for me to run Coverity on a patch to test that out?
Which Coverity CI do we actually use? Is it this one here [1]?
[1] https://scan.coverity.com/projects/209?
--
David Geier
