Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 6:14 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> However, now that I've corrected that mistaken image ... I wonder if >> it could make sense to redefine relptr as self-relative? That ought >> to provide some notational savings since you'd only need to carry >> around the relptr's own address not that plus a base address. >> Probably not something to consider for v15 though.
> I think that would be pretty hard to make work, since copying around a > relative pointer would change its meaning. Code like "relptr_foo x = > *y" would be broken, for example, but the compiler would not complain. Sure, but the current definition is far from error-proof as well: nothing stops you from using the wrong base address with a relptr's value. Anyway, it's just idle speculation at this point. regards, tom lane