From: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | chris <chris(at)dba2(dot)int(dot)libertyrms(dot)com>, kjcamann(at)gmail(dot)com |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: A Windows x64 port of PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2008-07-06 00:40:06 |
Message-ID: | 48701466.1070502@cheapcomplexdevices.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
chris wrote:
>> C++0x standards
>> committee where they finalized long long as being required to be 8
>
> AFAIK, we oughtn't care what C++ standards say, because PostgreSQL is
> implemented in C, and therefore needs to follow what the *C* standards
> say.
I agree the C++ standards should matter one bit to postgresql, but
AFAIK C99 also says "long long" is at least 64 bits too -- but if
we're talking C99, we'd be better off using whichever of int64_t
or int_least64_t or int_fast64_t we really meant anyway. Since we
don't I assume we're trying to be compatible with pre-c99 C too
which AFAICT means you can't assume much about "long long" either.
Pre-C99 you can't really count on much. I've spent time where "int"
was 20 bits; and on another platform where int was 32 bits and
long 40 bits.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2008-07-06 00:46:39 | Re: PATCH: CITEXT 2.0 |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-07-05 23:13:32 | Re: [PATCHES] Solaris ident authentication using unix domain sockets |