"Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> writes:
> I think all ALIGNOF macros should be checked.
There are no platforms for which ALIGNOF_SHORT is different from 2.
I don't think there are any platforms we care about where ALIGNOF_INT
is different from 4. The cases of interest are ALIGNOF_DOUBLE,
ALIGNOF_LONG, ALIGNOF_LONG_LONG_INT (note that MAXIMUM_ALIGNOF is
just the largest of these). In practice "long int" is the same type
as either "int" or "long long int", so ALIGNOF_LONG isn't a distinct
case either. What it comes down to is that MAXIMUM_ALIGNOF is
sufficient to tell the difference between the platforms we need to
deal with. If you have a counterexample, tell us about it.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2005-09-28 03:48:56|
|Subject: Re: Proposed patch for sequence-renaming problems|
|Previous:||From: Chris Browne||Date: 2005-09-28 03:22:12|
|Subject: Re: State of support for back PG branches|