Re: PRI?64 vs Visual Studio (2022)

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PRI?64 vs Visual Studio (2022)
Date: 2025-11-19 02:13:54
Message-ID: CA+hUKGJnmzTqiODmTjf-23yZ=E3HXqFTtKoyp3TF-MpB93hTMQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 2:04 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
> On 31.03.25 08:28, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > I hadn’t paid much attention to this before, but I happened to check
> > how this behaves on Windows, and it seems that with VS2022, PRId64
> > expands to "%lld". As a result, I suspect the gettext message catalog
> > won't match these messages correctly.
>
> I think this is working correctly. Gettext has a built-in mechanism to
> translate the %<PRI...> back to the appropriate %lld or %ld. See also
> <https://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/manual/html_node/c_002dformat.html>.

Interesting report though. Commit 962da900 assumed that our in-tree
printf implementation still needed to understand that %I64 stuff in
case it came to us from system headers, but it looks like it
disappeared with MSVCRT:

1. I checked with CI (VS 2019). puts(PRId64) prints out "lld".
2. MinGW's inttypes.h[1] only uses "I64" et al if you build against MSVCRT.

So I think we should delete that stuff. Attached.

I worried that GNU gettext() might still know about %I64 somewhere,
but it just expands the macros to whatever inttypes.h defines[2].
Good.

We don't even test -Dnls on the Windows CI task, so the fact that it
passes there doesn't mean much (if our tests would even pick up
<PRI*64> expansion failure, not sure). We should probably do
something about that and/or its absence from the build farm. We're
effectively counting on the EDB packaging team or end users to tell us
if we break localisation on this platform.

I was also curious to know if the nearby floating point formatting
kludge added by commit f1885386 was still needed today. CI passes
without it, and the standard is pretty clear: "The exponent always
contains at least two digits, and only as many more digits as
necessary to represent the exponent". I didn't look too closely at
the fine print, but that text was already present in C89 so I guess
MSVCRT just failed to conform on that point.

[1] https://github.com/mingw-w64/mingw-w64/blob/master/mingw-w64-headers/crt/inttypes.h
[2] https://github.com/autotools-mirror/gettext/blob/637b208fbe13f1c306f19d4f31c21fec7e9986d2/gettext-runtime/intl/loadmsgcat.c#L473

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Drop-support-for-MSVCRT-s-I64-format-strings.patch text/x-patch 2.3 KB
0002-Drop-support-for-MSVCRT-s-float-formatting-quirk.patch text/x-patch 1.7 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Guo 2025-11-19 02:18:23 Re: Fix typos in ExecChooseHashTableSize()
Previous Message Chao Li 2025-11-19 02:09:42 Re: Checkpointer write combining