Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] snprintf causes regression tests to fail

From: Nicolai Tufar <ntufar(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org,pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] snprintf causes regression tests to fail
Date: 2005-03-01 23:09:41
Message-ID: d8092939050301150915269538@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-hackers-win32pgsql-patches
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 17:45:31 -0500, Tom Lane > Just out of curiosity,
do either HAVE_INT64 or HAVE_UINT64 get set
> in pg_config.h?  

pg_config.h is attached. What drew my attention is the
following declaration:

/* Define to 1 if `long long int' works and is 64 bits. */
#define HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT_64


is it normal? should it not be like this:
#define HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT_64 1

Attachment: pg_config.h
Description: text/plain (19.9 KB)

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-03-01 23:15:49
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] snprintf causes regression tests to fail
Previous:From: Nicolai TufarDate: 2005-03-01 22:57:46
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] snprintf causes regression tests to fail

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2005-03-01 23:18:30
Subject: Re: Where to see the patch queue (was Re: [PATCHES] Patch
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-03-01 22:45:31
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] snprintf causes regression tests to fail

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-03-01 23:15:49
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] snprintf causes regression tests to fail
Previous:From: Nicolai TufarDate: 2005-03-01 22:57:46
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] snprintf causes regression tests to fail

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group