Change pg_bsd_indent to follow upstream rules for placement of comments
to the right of code, and remove pgindent hack that caused comments
following #endif to not obey the general rule.
Commit e3860ffa4d wasn't actually using
the published version of pg_bsd_indent, but a hacked-up version that
tried to minimize the amount of movement of comments to the right of
code. The situation of interest is where such a comment has to be
moved to the right of its default placement at column 33 because there's
code there. BSD indent has always moved right in units of tab stops
in such cases --- but in the previous incarnation, indent was working
in 8-space tab stops, while now it knows we use 4-space tabs. So the
net result is that in about half the cases, such comments are placed
one tab stop left of before. This is better all around: it leaves
more room on the line for comment text, and it means that in such
cases the comment uniformly starts at the next 4-space tab stop after
the code, rather than sometimes one and sometimes two tabs after.
Also, ensure that comments following #endif are indented the same
as comments following other preprocessor commands such as #else.
That inconsistency turns out to have been self-inflicted damage
from a poorly-thought-through post-indent "fixup" in pgindent.
This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent
changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
If we're going to write a semicolon after calls of relptr_declare(),
then we don't need one inside the macro, and removing it suppresses
"empty declaration" warnings from pickier compilers (eg pademelon).
While at it, we might as well use relptr() inside relptr_declare(),
because otherwise that macro would likely go unused altogether.
Also improve the comment, which I for one found unclear,
and provide a specific example of intended usage.
C doesn't have any sort of built-in understanding of a pointer
relative to some arbitrary base address, but dynamic shared memory
segments can be mapped at different addresses in different processes,
so any sort of shared data structure stored within a dynamic shared
memory segment can't use absolute pointers. We could use something
like Size to represent a relative pointer, but then the compiler
provides no type-checking. Use stupid macro tricks to get some
type-checking.
Patch originally by me. Concept suggested by Andres Freund. Recently
resubmitted as part of Thomas Munro's work on dynamic shared memory
allocation.
Discussion: 20131205144434.GG12398@alap2.anarazel.de
Discussion: CAEepm=1z5WLuNoJ80PaCvz6EtG9dN0j-KuHcHtU6QEfcPP5-qA@mail.gmail.com
