Re: Comparison with "true" in source code

From: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Comparison with "true" in source code
Date: 2010-11-04 01:45:14
Message-ID: AANLkTinY14ToJ2gWX-zm55ffj_e9qCLPGX=4FuW1BkLh@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 2:19 AM, Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 12:17:02PM +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote:
>> There are some "== true" in the codes, but they might not be safe
>> because all non-zero values are true in C. Is it worth cleaning up them?

Here is a proposed cleanup that replaces "boolean == true" with "boolean".
I didn't touch "== false" unless they are not in pairs of comparisons
with true because comparison with false is a valid C code.

Note that I also changed "boolean != true" in pg_upgrade,
but I didn't change ones in xlog.c because it might check
corrupted fields in control files.

>> src/interfaces/ecpg/preproc/ecpg.c(310):
>> ptr2ext[3] = (header_mode == true) ? 'h' : 'c';
> I actually see no reason why these variables are not defined as bool instead of
> int, so I changed this. Hopefully I found all of them.

I added an additional cleanup to 'header_mode' in ecpg; I changed the type
from bool to char to hold 'h' or 'c'. Do you think it is reasonable?

--
Itagaki Takahiro

Attachment Content-Type Size
bool_eq_true_cleanup.patch application/octet-stream 11.7 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vaibhav Kaushal 2010-11-04 02:30:17 Can we talk about a version which has already been developed?
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2010-11-04 01:27:33 Re: timestamp of the last replayed transaction