Re: Some efforts to get rid of "long" in our codebase

On Fri, 7 Nov 2025 at 07:33, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 06.11.25 12:46, David Rowley wrote:
> > 0002: MemSet / MemSetAligned macros. It's probably about time someone
> > made these disappear, but that's likely for another thread with more
> > research than I'd like to do here. I replaced "long" with "Size". I
> > also considered "uintptr_t", but after some reading of the C standard,
> > I settled on Size as it seems it's possible for platforms to exist
> > where the pointer width is smaller than the processor's width. I
> > suspect it might not matter for the platforms we support? Size could
> > also be smaller than the processor's width, but I feel that's less
> > likely.
>
> I think size_t/Size could be misleading here. You're not measuring any
> size, you're just chunking up the bytes to zero into something that we
> thing the compiler or CPU can handle very efficiently.
>
> So in a sense, using long isn't wrong here. It might well be the best
> for this. If there is an aversion to using any long at all, why not
> long long.

The point in changing this was that long isn't a good fit as it's not
64-bit on 64-bit Windows. My aim is to find a type with a width the
same as the processor's word size. long long tends to be 64-bit on
32-bit platforms, so doesn't seem a very good fit. Someone might argue
that doesn't matter now since we no longer have 4-byte Datums, but
IMO, this isn't any reason to make things even worse for 32-bit
builds.

David