On Tue, Jun 30, 2026, at 9:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Thomas Munro <[email protected]> writes: >> It looks like they didn't want __riscv32 and __riscv64? >> https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/g/sw-dev/c/E8EO-Fd4t3s > > Sigh ... another project that is convinced that they're smarter than > everybody else and conforming to common practice is an anti-pattern. > > Based on that thread, I'm thinking > > ... > #elif defined(__riscv) > #if SIZEOF_VOID_P == 8 > #define __riscv64__ 1 > #else > #define __riscv__ 1 > #endif > #elif defined(__s390__) > ...
I don't see SIZEOF_VOID_P but I do find: #define __SIZEOF_POINTER__ 8 -greg > I'd rather rely on our own pointer-size determination than YA > magic compiler-defined symbol. > > regards, tom lane
