Re: INT64_MIN and _MAX

From: Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: INT64_MIN and _MAX
Date: 2015-03-21 22:50:12
Message-ID: 550DF5A4.40509@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 21/03/15 23:45, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> A couple of places (adt/timestamp.c and pgbench.c) have this:
>
> #ifndef INT64_MAX
> #define INT64_MAX INT64CONST(0x7FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF)
> #endif
>
> #ifndef INT64_MIN
> #define INT64_MIN (-INT64CONST(0x7FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF) - 1)
> #endif
>
> On the other hand, int8.c uses the INT64_MIN expression directly inline.
>
> On the third hand, INT64_MIN etc. would typically be defined in stdint.h
> if it exists.
>
> So wouldn't it make more sense to move these definitions into c.h and
> standardize their usage?
>

I was thinking the same when I've seen Peter's version of Numeric
abbreviations patch. So +1 for that.

--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Gierth 2015-03-21 23:46:48 Re: INT64_MIN and _MAX
Previous Message Andrew Gierth 2015-03-21 22:45:01 INT64_MIN and _MAX