| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: fixing INT64_FORMAT warnings on Mingw |
| Date: | 2011-04-27 14:19:00 |
| Message-ID: | 4DB825D4.9030000@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04/27/2011 09:00 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 00:01 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Both "%lld" and "%I64d" can be used with mingw to print 64 bit integers.
>> However, modern versions of gcc spit warnings with the former, and not
>> the latter. However, since "%lld" works, it is chosen by our config
>> setup since it comes first in the list of formats tried. Therefore, to
>> keep the compiler happy I proposed to rearrange that so that "%I64d" is
>> preferred if it's found to work.
> We should prefer the standard syntax (%lld) over nonstandard ways.
> There could just as well be platforms that accept %I64d but warn about
> it (as being nonstandard).
>
> If that doesn't work for a specific platform, either adjust the test so
> that it checks for warnings, or just manually override the result in
> pg_config_os.h.
>
I did it that way.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-04-27 14:29:55 | Re: unknown conversion %m |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-04-27 14:17:48 | Re: Best way to construct Datum out of a string? |