Re: alignas (C11) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: alignas (C11)
Date
Msg-id 3635041.1769361243@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: alignas (C11)  (Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>)
Responses Re: alignas (C11)
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> writes:
> On 23.01.26 23:18, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm, yeah, their bug #70066 shows clearly that the __attribute__
>> spelling should work.  But I think we'd better make the cutoff be
>> version 9 not version 6, because that same bug is quite clear
>> about when they fixed it.  The lack of complaints from the buildfarm
>> may just indicate a lack of animals running the intermediate versions.

> Ok, done that way.

Sigh ... that did not work.  Various BF animals are now blowing up in
src/backend/jit/llvm because this macro definition breaks some usages
of alignas() in LLVM header files.

Maybe we could #define alignas this way for the two exposed usages
and then #undef afterwards?

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Sami Imseih
Date:
Subject: Re: Optional skipping of unchanged relations during ANALYZE?
Next
From: Sami Imseih
Date:
Subject: Re: Optional skipping of unchanged relations during ANALYZE?