Hi,
On 2021-03-15 12:12:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Although I remain worried about this being an ABI break, I don't think
> we are locked into it until we get to beta, or maybe even RC stage.
Could it make sense to define sigjmp_buf as a union over the potentially
needed implementations? That'd allow us to switch back without an ABI
break if we discover a problem with the gcc approach. And it might
even allow to backpatch this, if we cared enough, since I assume the
mingw jmp_buf is larger than intptr_t[5].
Greetings,
Andres Freund
