> On 22 May 2024, at 18:53, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@xxxxxxxx> writes: >> They are known to be zero, but that's not entirely equivalent though is it? >> NIL is defined as ((List *) NULL) and NULL is typically defined as ((void *) >> 0), so sizeof(0) would be the size of an int and sizeof(NULL) would be the size >> of a void pointer. > > There are other places where we assume that a memset-to-zero will > produce null pointers, so I don't think that that objection has > a lot of force. It wasn't really an objection, but (perhaps a badly worded) an attempt to understand the proposal. > My real answer is that this is our coding style > and we are not going to change it: our normal convention is to > initialize struct fields in declaration order, and that's what > we're doing here. If some particular version of some particular > compiler fails to make an entirely-negligible optimization in > consequence, that is not something we are going to care about. +1 -- Daniel Gustafsson
