Re: Question about bit.h and bit.c - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Sailesh Krishnamurthy
Subject Re: Question about bit.h and bit.c
Date
Msg-id m3smw6yjgj.fsf@datafix.CS.Berkeley.EDU
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Question about bit.h and bit.c  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Question about bit.h and bit.c  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
   Tom> Sailesh Krishnamurthy <sailesh@cs.berkeley.edu> writes:   >> Why is it that bit.h is in src/include/utils and
bit.cis in   >> src/backend/lib ?
 
   Tom> Possibly a more interesting question is why haven't we   Tom> ditched them both ... AFAICT none of the bit.c
routinesare   Tom> used anymore.
 

True. I just searched and found the only uses of the bitmask functions
(now greatly expanded) in our code :-)

-- 
Pip-pip
Sailesh
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~sailesh


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Lamar Owen
Date:
Subject: Re: Upgrading rant.
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: New Portal in Place, DNS switched ...