Re: Back branches vs. gcc 4.8.0 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: Back branches vs. gcc 4.8.0
Date
Msg-id CAM3SWZRT0YpzCRe+cOCZ8Hf5qPNKiuX4x+wqfbhOVzaGPZucrQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Back branches vs. gcc 4.8.0  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:50 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Hm, I see 4 places in HEAD.  But in any case, is

My mistake. I had REL9_2_STABLE checked out.

>     int16        values[1];        /* VARIABLE LENGTH ARRAY */
> } int2vector;                      /* VARIABLE LENGTH STRUCT */
>
> really better than
>
>     int16        values[FLEXIBLE_ARRAY_MEMBER];
> } int2vector;
>
> ?  I don't think so.

I can see your point. Now that I look at the comments beside
FLEXIBLE_ARRAY_MEMBER, I see that indeed, as I suspected, the
Microsoft flexible array members are not completely compatible with
C99 style flexible arrays, so this may be the least-worst option.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Back branches vs. gcc 4.8.0
Next
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: corrupt pages detected by enabling checksums