On Sun, 28 Jul 2024 at 11:06, Joseph Koshakow <kosh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > + uint64 usize = size < 0 ? (uint64) (-size) : (uint64) size; > > I think that the explicit test for PG_INT64_MIN is still required. If > `size` is equal to PG_INT64_MIN then `-size` will overflow. You end up > with the correct behavior if `size` wraps around, but that's only > guaranteed on platforms that support the `-fwrapv` flag.
What if we spelt it out the same way as pg_lltoa() does? i.e: uint64 usize = size < 0 ? 0 - (uint64) size : (uint64) size; David
