| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>, "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: RELEASE STOPPER? nonportable int64 constants in pg_crc.c |
| Date: | 2001-03-22 05:07:41 |
| Message-ID: | 15342.985237661@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Can we use (long long) rather than LL?
>>
>> No.
> Can I ask how 0LL is different from (long long)0?
The former is a long-long-int constant ab initio. The latter is an int
constant that is subsequently casted to long long. If you write
(long long) 12345678901234567890
I'd expect a compiler that warns about larger-than-int constants to
produce a warning anyway, since the warning is only looking at the
constant and not its context of use. (If the warning had that much
intelligence, it'd not be complaining now.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-03-22 05:08:17 | Re: odbc/UnixWare 7.1.1: No Go. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-03-22 05:00:39 | Re: RPM building (was regression on RedHat) |