On 2013-10-08 12:26:17 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > So I guess it's either a separate macro, or we rewrite that piece of > > code to work slightly differently and work directly on the lenght or > > such. > > > > Maybe we should add a StaticAssert ensuring the TYPEALIGN macro only > > gets passed 32bit types? > > I think having two macros that behave identically on all platforms > anyone cares about[1] but which can cause difficult-to-find > corner-case-bugs on other platforms is just a recipe for disaster. I > pledge to screw that up at least once.
Do you have a better alternative? Making the computation unconditionally 64bit will have a runtime overhead and adding a StaticAssert in the existing macro doesn't work because we use it in array sizes where gcc balks. We could try using inline functions, but that's not going to be pretty either. I don't really see that many further usecases that will align 64bit values on 32bit platforms, so I think we're ok for now. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
