Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Testing for int64 (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server/ /configure

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, <pgsql-ports(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Testing for int64 (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server/ /configure
Date: 2003-01-29 17:59:30
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0301291857050.789-100000@localhost.localdomain (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-committerspgsql-hackerspgsql-ports
Tom Lane writes:

> I think a reasonable choice in cross-compiling situations would be to
> assume int64 works if we have a long long int datatype, but to force use
> of our own snprintf rather than trusting to luck with the platform's.

That's approximately what's happening.  Formerly it insisted on doing a
run check to detect the int64 type.  Now it does a compile check when

For the snprintf format detection we obviously don't have that chance.  I
just refactored the code a little and added a cache variable so the
advanced cross-compiling user can override the check with known values.

Peter Eisentraut   peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to

pgsql-ports by date

Next:From: sachinDate: 2003-01-30 09:57:45
Subject: Request for PostgreSql performance and stability data
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-01-29 01:50:58
Subject: Testing for int64 (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server/ /configure /

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2003-01-29 18:01:37
Subject: Re: Request for qualified column names
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2003-01-29 17:54:09
Subject: Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System

pgsql-committers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-01-29 19:37:23
Subject: pgsql-server/src/backend/executor Tag: REL7_2_ ...
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-01-29 15:24:57
Subject: pgsql-server/src/backend/executor Tag: REL7_3_ ...

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group