Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tCr3B-00DoNy-Dy for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 18 Nov 2024 01:59:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tCr37-002OXO-TM for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 18 Nov 2024 01:59:34 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tCr37-002OXF-KZ for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 18 Nov 2024 01:59:34 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tCr30-002V02-K5 for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 18 Nov 2024 01:59:33 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 4AI1xNAw3198439; Sun, 17 Nov 2024 20:59:23 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Thomas Munro cc: Sam James , pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: Build failure with GCC 15 (defaults to -std=gnu23) In-reply-to: References: <87o72eo9iu.fsf@gentoo.org> <3073930.1731867112@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3160019.1731875201@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3169079.1731880169@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3175762.1731883847@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Thomas Munro message dated "Mon, 18 Nov 2024 14:30:38 +1300" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3198437.1731895163.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2024 20:59:23 -0500 Message-ID: <3198438.1731895163@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Thomas Munro writes: > I found a few lines we could just delete in master. I wonder if we > should also just require sizeof(bool) == 1 more explicitly going > forward with an error, since we don't have coverage or any expectation > of ever getting any for the alternative code AFAICS, even if it is > small. Yeah, that's a fair criticism. I don't think we've tested that code path since I retired prairiedog, so who's to say that it works even now? Maybe it's best to just delete that code, and if we ever find a new platform with wider bool, figure out what to do at that time. regards, tom lane