You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The C standard says that sizeof(bool) is implementation-defined, but we
know of no current systems where it is not 1. The last known systems
seem to have been Apple macOS/PowerPC 10.5 and Microsoft Visual C++ 4,
both long defunct.
PostgreSQL has always required sizeof(bool) == 1 for the definition of
bool that it used, but previously it would define its own type if the
system-provided bool had a different size. That was liable to cause
memory layout problems when interacting with system and third-party
libraries on (by now hypothetical) computers with wider _Bool, and now
C23 has introduced a new problem by making bool a built-in datatype
(like C++), so the fallback code doesn't even compile. We could
probably work around that, but then we'd be writing new untested code
for a computer that doesn't exist.
Instead, delete the unreachable and C23-uncompilable fallback code, and
let existing static assertions fail if the system-provided bool is too
wide. If we ever get a problem report from a real system, then it will
be time to figure out what to do about it in a way that also works on
modern compilers.
Note on C++: Previously we avoided including <stdbool.h> or trying to
define a new bool type in headers that might be included by C++ code.
These days we might as well just include <stdbool.h> unconditionally:
it should be visible to C++11 but do nothing, just as in C23. We
already include <stdint.h> without C++ guards in c.h, and that falls
under the same C99-compatibility section of the C++11 standard as
<stdbool.h>, so let's remove the guards here too.
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3198438.1731895163%40sss.pgh.pa.us
0 commit comments