On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 5:27 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 08:52:26AM +0100, Mats Kindahl wrote: > >> The types "int" and "size_t" are treated as s32 and u32 respectively > since > >> that seems to be the case for most of the code, even if strictly not > >> correct (size_t can be an unsigned long int for some architecture). > > > Why is it safe to do this? > > We do pretty much assume that "int" is "int32". But I agree that > assuming anything about the width of size_t is bad. I think we need > a separate pg_cmp_size() or pg_cmp_size_t(). > I added precisely one first, but removed it when I saw that all uses assumed that it was an int. :) I'll add it back. Best wishes, Mats Kindahl > > regards, tom lane >
