Re: Decoupling our alignment assumptions about int64 and double

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Aditya Kamath <Aditya(dot)Kamath1(at)ibm(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Srirama Kucherlapati <sriram(dot)rk(at)in(dot)ibm(dot)com>, AIX PG user <postgres-ibm-aix(at)wwpdl(dot)vnet(dot)ibm(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Decoupling our alignment assumptions about int64 and double
Date: 2026-02-10 21:24:56
Message-ID: CA+hUKGLSOnqKLPKv2N_Xne162Sqs_kyoUjGcx+mkNDeWbg-vyw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> But now that we've agreed to toss xlc support
> out the window,

We weren't the only ones, apparently... I don't know the details but
it would be surprising if this stuff doesn't work on this tool chain:

https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/openxl-c-and-cpp-aix/17.1.4?topic=new-enhanced-llvm-clang-support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Viktor Holmberg 2026-02-10 21:58:59 Re: ON CONFLICT DO SELECT (take 3)
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2026-02-10 20:53:58 Re: PGPROC alignment (was Re: pgsql: Separate RecoveryConflictReasons from procsignals)