Re: Cleaning up historical portability baggage

On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 2:30 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2022-08-03 21:52:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > > Another potential cleanup is the fallback for strtoll/strtoull.
> >
> > +1, I suspect the alternate spellings are dead.
>
> Looks like that includes systems where there's no declaration for strtoll,
> strtoull. The test was introduced in
>
> commit a6228128fc48c222953dfd41fd438522a184054c
> Author: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> Date: 2018-05-18 22:42:10 -0400
>
> Arrange to supply declarations for strtoll/strtoull if needed.
>
> The check was introduced for animal dromedary, afaics. Looks like that stopped
> reporting 2019-09-27 and transformed into florican.
>
> A query on the bf database didn't see any runs in the last 30 days that didn't
> have strtoll declared.
>
> See attached patch.

LGTM. This is just C99 <stdlib.h> stuff, and my scraped config data
set agrees with your observation.