Re: AW: Re: RELEASE STOPPER? nonportable int64 constants in pg_crc.c

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>
Cc: "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: AW: Re: RELEASE STOPPER? nonportable int64 constants in pg_crc.c
Date: 2001-03-23 16:12:19
Message-ID: 18114.985363939@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> writes:
>> I'm aware that some compilers will produce warnings about these
>> constants, but there should not be any that fail completely, since
>> (a) we won't be compiling this code unless we've proven that the
>> compiler supports a 64-bit-int datatype, and

> Unfortunately configure does not check the use of 64 bit integer
> constants. A little check on AIX shows, that it indeed DOES NOT work !!!!!

Grumble...

>> (b) the C standard
>> forbids a compiler from requiring width suffixes (cf. 6.4.4.1 in C99).

> Maybe that standard is somewhat too recent to rely upon 100%.

ANSI C says the same thing, although of course it only discusses int and
long. But the spec has always been clear that the implied type of an
integer constant is whatever it takes to hold it; you do not need an
explicit "L" suffix to make a valid constant. AIX's compiler is broken.

> Do you want me to supply an AIX specific patch with #if defined (_AIX) ?

I'll do something about it. Would you check to see whether a macro like
#define SIXTYFOUR(x) x##LL
works?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matthew 2001-03-23 16:43:11 RE: 7.0.3 _bt_restscan: my bits moved right off the end of the world!
Previous Message Matthew 2001-03-23 16:01:47 7.0.3 _bt_restscan: my bits moved right off the end of the world!