On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>>> Amit Kapila escribió:
>>>> 1>.\src\backend\utils\cache\relfilenodemap.c(213) : warning C4101:
>>>> 'isnull' : unreferenced local variable
>
>> The macro is pretty gcc-specific, isn't it?
>
> If that's the problem, why isn't Amit seeing a boatload of similar
> warnings elsewhere?
If I try to change other place similar to relfilenodemap.c, I am
getting similar warning. For example:
Original Code
--------------------
ExecMaterial()
{
..
/* * Allocate a second read pointer to serve as the mark. We know it * must have index 1, so
needn'tstore that. */ int ptrno PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY;
ptrno = tuplestore_alloc_read_pointer(tuplestorestate,
node->eflags); Assert(ptrno == 1);
..
}
Modified Code
---------------------
ExecMaterial()
{
..
/* * Allocate a second read pointer to serve as the mark. We know it * must have index 1, so
needn'tstore that. */ int ptrno PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY;
#ifdef USE_ASSERT_CHECKING
ptrno = tuplestore_alloc_read_pointer(tuplestorestate,
node->eflags); Assert(ptrno == 1);
#endif
..
}
After above modification it gives below compilation error:
1>.\src\backend\executor\nodeMaterial.c(69) : warning C4101: 'ptrno' :
unreferenced local variable
Coming to original warning, changing the code as below removes warning:
RelidByRelfilenode()
{
..
#ifdef USE_ASSERT_CHECKING if (assert_enabled) { Oid check; bool isnull
PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY; check = fastgetattr(ntp, Anum_pg_class_reltablespace,
RelationGetDescr(relation), &isnull); Assert(!isnull && check == reltablespace);
check = fastgetattr(ntp, Anum_pg_class_relfilenode,
RelationGetDescr(relation), &isnull); Assert(!isnull && check == relfilenode);
}
#endif
Moving isnull declaration inside if block resolves current compilation
warning, I think in any case it is better to declare inside if block
as it is used in that block only.
I think resolving the bigger problem such that it should not give
warning for such usage in MSVC is important, but can be dealt as a
separate thread/patch.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
