Re: [PROPOSAL] Improvements of Hunspell dictionaries support

Thank you for the review.

On 10.02.2016 19:46, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
>
>> I duplicate the patch here.
>
> it's very good thing to update disctionaries to support modern versions.
> And thank you for improving documentation. Also I've impressed by long
> description in spell.c header.
>
> Som notices about code:
>
> 1
>   struct SPELL. Why do you remove union p? You leave comment
>   about using d struct instead of flag field and as can see
>   it's right comment. It increases size of SPELL structure.

I will fix it. I had misunderstood the Alvaro's comment about it.

>
> 2 struct AFFIX. I'm agree with Alvaro taht sum of sizes of bit fields
> should be less or equal to size of integer. In opposite case, suppose,
> we can get undefined behavior. Please, split  bitfields  to two integers.

I will fix it. Here I had misunderstood too.

>
> 3 unsigned char flagval[65000];
>    Is it forbidden to use 65555 number? In any case, decodeFlag() doesn't
>    restrict return value. I suggest to enlarge array to 1<<16 and add limit
>    to return value of decodeFlag().

I think it can be done.

>
> 4
>   I'd like to see a short comment describing at least new functions

Now in spell.c there are more comments. I wanted to send fixed patch 
after adding all comments that I want to add. But I can send the patch now.
Also I will merge this commit 
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/E1aTf9o-0001ga-LG@gemulon.postgresql.org

>
> 5
>   Pls, add tests for new code.
>
>

I will add.

-- 
Artur Zakirov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company