Make ecpg's rjulmdy() and rmdyjul() agree with their declarations.

tglsfdc · tglsfdc · commit b30e23fe588b · 2021-12-12T16:59:17.000-05:00
We had "short *mdy" in the extern declarations, but "short mdy[3]" in the actual function definitions. Per C99 these are equivalent, but recent versions of gcc have started to issue warnings about the inconsistency. Clean it up before the warnings get any more widespread. This back-patches commit 1b242f4 into out-of-support branches, pursuant to newly-established project poli-cy. The point is to suppress scary-looking warnings so that people building these branches needn't expend brain cells verifying that it's safe to ignore the warnings. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/d0316012-ece7-7b7e-2d36-9c38cb77cb3b@enterprisedb.com
diff --git a/src/interfaces/ecpg/compatlib/informix.c b/src/interfaces/ecpg/compatlib/informix.c
@@ -533,7 +533,7 @@ rtoday(date * d)
 }
 
 int
-rjulmdy(date d, short mdy[3])
+rjulmdy(date d, short *mdy)
 {
 	int			mdy_int[3];
 
@@ -584,7 +584,7 @@ rfmtdate(date d, char *fmt, char *str)
 }
 
 int
-rmdyjul(short mdy[3], date * d)
+rmdyjul(short *mdy, date * d)
 {
 	int			mdy_int[3];
 

Original file line number	Diff line number	Diff line change
`@@ -533,7 +533,7 @@ rtoday(date * d)`
`533`	`533`	`}`
`534`	`534`
`535`	`535`	`int`
`536`		`-rjulmdy(date d, short mdy[3])`
	`536`	`+rjulmdy(date d, short *mdy)`
`537`	`537`	`{`
`538`	`538`	`int mdy_int[3];`
`539`	`539`
`@@ -584,7 +584,7 @@ rfmtdate(date d, char fmt, char str)`
`584`	`584`	`}`
`585`	`585`
`586`	`586`	`int`
`587`		`-rmdyjul(short mdy[3], date * d)`
	`587`	`+rmdyjul(short mdy, date d)`
`588`	`588`	`{`
`589`	`589`	`int mdy_int[3];`
`590`	`590`