Re: Large writable variables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Large writable variables
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYbL42rJbn3-fakviMurnnwS+p=rt5iXH8ccP+gQsZdMQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Large writable variables  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Large writable variables  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 2:30 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> This just reminded me that a couple times I wanted a cast that casts
> away const, but otherwise makes sure the type stays the same. I don't
> think there's a way to do that in C, but we can write one that verifies
> the cast doesn't do something bad if gcc is used:
>
> #if defined(HAVE__BUILTIN_TYPES_COMPATIBLE_P)
> #define unconstify(cst, var) StaticAssertExpr(__builtin_types_compatible_p(__typeof(var), const cst), "wrong cast"),
(cst)(var)
 
> #else
> #define unconstify(cst, var) ((cst) (var))
> #endif
>
> Does anybody besides me see value in adding a cleaned up version of
> that?

Under what circumstances would we consider this to be a legitimate thing to use?

I think if we add something this, we'd better accompany it with some
detailed and very clearly-written statements about when you're allowed
to use it.  Otherwise, I predict that people will use it in cases
where it's not actually safe, and we'll end up with low-grade bugs.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: PG vs macOS Mojave
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Large writable variables