| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: alignas (C11) |
| Date: | 2026-01-23 22:18:44 |
| Message-ID: | 3148330.1769206724@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> writes:
> On 23.01.26 18:33, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Not sure what to do about that, but I do read it as indicating that we
>> cannot put any faith in the compiler to honor such large alignment
>> demands.
> I think we could work around it like this:
> #if defined(__cplusplus) && defined(__GNUC__) && __GNUC__ <= 6
> #define alignas(a) __attribute__((aligned(a)))
> #endif
Hmm, yeah, their bug #70066 shows clearly that the __attribute__
spelling should work. But I think we'd better make the cutoff be
version 9 not version 6, because that same bug is quite clear
about when they fixed it. The lack of complaints from the buildfarm
may just indicate a lack of animals running the intermediate versions.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2026-01-23 22:20:20 | Re: alignas (C11) |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2026-01-23 22:00:43 | Re: alignas (C11) |