On December 22, 2017 7:52:54 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> On 2017-12-22 11:00:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I do not think it is reasonable for these functions to not set the
>>> output variable at all in the overflow case; it is not their job
>>> to opine on whether the caller may use the result.
>
>> I don't agree. Please note that that the function's documentation
>> explicitly says "The content of *result is implementation defined in
>> case of overflow.".
>
>I will not accept an implementation that spews compiler warnings
>all over the place, which is what this one is doing. Please fix that,
>or else I will.
Are you seriously implying that I'm suggesting that we live with a warning / that I refuse to fix one? All I was saying
isthat I don't want to exactly define which value *result is set to in case of overflow. Without having resolved the
discussionof semantics it just seemed pointless to start fixing...
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
