Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 08:52:26AM +0100, Mats Kindahl wrote: >> The types "int" and "size_t" are treated as s32 and u32 respectively since >> that seems to be the case for most of the code, even if strictly not >> correct (size_t can be an unsigned long int for some architecture).
> Why is it safe to do this?
We do pretty much assume that "int" is "int32". But I agree that assuming anything about the width of size_t is bad. I think we need a separate pg_cmp_size() or pg_cmp_size_t().
Do we want to have something similar for "int" as well? It seems to be quite common and even though it usually is an int32, it does not have to be.