Re: [HACKERS] Autoconf'd test for int64

From: "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Autoconf'd test for int64
Date: 1998-08-16 22:20:03
Message-ID: 35D75B13.F0945305@alumni.caltech.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Attached is a patch that uses autoconf to determine whether there is
> a working 64-bit-int type available.

Using autoconf for things sounds great. I've been relying on scrappy for
that stuff, and find it a mystery myself. Marc or someone, would you be
willing to write a few sentences on how to make incremental changes to
the Postgres autoconfig system? I'll put it into the Developer's Guide,
and could make a stab at using it elsewhere.

> In playing around with it on my machine, I found that gcc provides
> perfectly fine support for "long long" arithmetic ... but sprintf()
> and sscanf(), which are system-supplied, don't work :-(. So the
> autoconf test program does a cursory test on them too.

Sorry to hear the formatting routines are broken. sprintf() and sscanf()
are HP supplied? Doesn't gcc have its own library also??

> If we find that a lot of systems are like this, it might be worth
> the trouble to implement binary<->ASCII conversion of int64 ourselves
> rather than relying on sprintf/sscanf to handle the data type.

Yuck. Whaddya mean "we"; *my* system works fine :)

- Tom

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message The Hermit Hacker 1998-08-16 22:57:37 Re: [HACKERS] Autoconf'd test for int64
Previous Message Tom Lane 1998-08-16 22:11:35 So what is the current documentation status?