| 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: | 2026-01-25 17:14:03 |
| Message-ID: | 3635041.1769361243@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 23:18, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
> Ok, done that way.
Sigh ... that did not work. Various BF animals are now blowing up in
src/backend/jit/llvm because this macro definition breaks some usages
of alignas() in LLVM header files.
Maybe we could #define alignas this way for the two exposed usages
and then #undef afterwards?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sami Imseih | 2026-01-25 17:23:39 | Re: Optional skipping of unchanged relations during ANALYZE? |
| Previous Message | Sami Imseih | 2026-01-25 16:52:09 | Re: Optional skipping of unchanged relations during ANALYZE? |