John Naylor <johncnaylo...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 8:12 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> IIUC there is no particular reason for the current order in RT_NODE_48.
> Yeah. I found that simply swapping them enables clang to avoid
> double-initialization, but gcc still can't figure it out and must be
> told to stop at slot_idxs[]. I'd prefer to do it that way and document
> that slot_idxs is purposefully the last member of the fixed part of
> the struct.
WFM.
> If that's agreeable I'll commit it that way tomorrow
> unless someone beats me to it.
I was going to push it, but feel free.
regards, tom lane
