On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 9:07 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 11:59:54AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2024-02-08 13:44:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Are we okay with using macros that (a) have double evaluation hazards > >> and (b) don't enforce the data types being compared are the same? > >> I think static inlines might be a safer technology. > > > > +1 > > Agreed on static inlines. > Seems to be a general consensus on static inlines. I'll get a new patch. > > I'd put these static inlines into common/int.h. I don't think this is > common > > enough to warrant being in c.h. Probably also doesn't hurt to have a not > quite > > as generic name as INT_CMP, I'd not be too surprised if that's defined > in some > > library. > > > > > > I think it's worth following int.h's pattern of including > [s]igned/[u]nsigned > > in the name, an efficient implementation for signed might not be the > same as > > for unsigned. And if we use static inlines, we need to do so for correct > > semantics anyway. > > Seems reasonable to me. > Agree. Best wishes, Mats Kindahl > > -- > Nathan Bossart > Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com >
