On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On August 31, 2016 3:06:23 PM PDT, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
>
>>In other painfully pedantic news, I should point out that
>>sizeof(size_t) isn't necessarily word size (the most generic
>>definition of word size for the architecture), contrary to my reading
>>of the 0002-* patch comments. I'm mostly talking thinking about x86_64
>>here, of course.
>
> Uh?
Sorry, I really should have not said anything. It is true that x86_64
word size is sometimes reported as 16 and/or 32 bits [1], because of
legacy issues.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_(computer_architecture)#Table_of_word_sizes
--
Peter Geoghegan
