From 5e4beae86d2684eb2f80cbda881eea5351b004ee Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andres Freund Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 15:12:09 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Fix C99isms introduced when backpatching atomics / spinlock tests. --- src/test/regress/regress.c | 13 ++++++++----- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/test/regress/regress.c b/src/test/regress/regress.c index 51f18d10775..697c0d56aef 100644 --- a/src/test/regress/regress.c +++ b/src/test/regress/regress.c @@ -1112,20 +1112,22 @@ test_spinlock(void) */ #ifndef HAVE_SPINLOCKS { + uint32 i; + /* * Initialize enough spinlocks to advance counter close to * wraparound. It's too expensive to perform acquire/release for each, * as those may be syscalls when the spinlock emulation is used (and * even just atomic TAS would be expensive). */ - for (uint32 i = 0; i < INT32_MAX - 100000; i++) + for (i = 0; i < INT32_MAX - 100000; i++) { slock_t lock; SpinLockInit(&lock); } - for (uint32 i = 0; i < 200000; i++) + for (i = 0; i < 200000; i++) { slock_t lock; @@ -1161,17 +1163,18 @@ test_atomic_spin_nest(void) #define NUM_TEST_ATOMICS (NUM_SPINLOCK_SEMAPHORES + NUM_ATOMICS_SEMAPHORES + 27) pg_atomic_uint32 atomics32[NUM_TEST_ATOMICS]; pg_atomic_uint64 atomics64[NUM_TEST_ATOMICS]; + int i; SpinLockInit(&lock); - for (int i = 0; i < NUM_TEST_ATOMICS; i++) + for (i = 0; i < NUM_TEST_ATOMICS; i++) { pg_atomic_init_u32(&atomics32[i], 0); pg_atomic_init_u64(&atomics64[i], 0); } /* just so it's not all zeroes */ - for (int i = 0; i < NUM_TEST_ATOMICS; i++) + for (i = 0; i < NUM_TEST_ATOMICS; i++) { EXPECT_EQ_U32(pg_atomic_fetch_add_u32(&atomics32[i], i), 0); EXPECT_EQ_U64(pg_atomic_fetch_add_u64(&atomics64[i], i), 0); @@ -1179,7 +1182,7 @@ test_atomic_spin_nest(void) /* test whether we can do atomic op with lock held */ SpinLockAcquire(&lock); - for (int i = 0; i < NUM_TEST_ATOMICS; i++) + for (i = 0; i < NUM_TEST_ATOMICS; i++) { EXPECT_EQ_U32(pg_atomic_fetch_sub_u32(&atomics32[i], i), i); EXPECT_EQ_U32(pg_atomic_read_u32(&atomics32[i]), 0);