Re: INT64_MIN and _MAX

On March 22, 2015 6:19:52 AM GMT+01:00, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> wrote:
>>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
>
>>>>>> "Petr" == Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>
>>>> So wouldn't it make more sense to move these definitions into c.h
>and
> >>> standardize their usage?
>
>Petr> I was thinking the same when I've seen Peter's version of Numeric
> Petr> abbreviations patch. So +1 for that.
>
>Hm, it looks like the same could be said for INT32_MIN and _MAX; some
>places use INT_MIN etc., others say "we shouldn't assume int = int32"
>and use (-0x7fffffff - 1) or whatever instead.

I have been annoyed by this multiple times. I think we should make sure the C99 defines are there (providing values if they aren't) and always use those. We've used them in parts of the tree long enough that it's unlikely to cause problems. Nothing is helped by using different things in other parts of the tree.

Willing to cook up a patch?

---
Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.