Re: PRI?64 vs Visual Studio (2022)

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, walther(at)technowledgy(dot)de, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PRI?64 vs Visual Studio (2022)
Date: 2025-12-15 19:29:29
Message-ID: ef44619f-a25b-41e5-be87-d3971ff8c1d3@eisentraut.org
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 15.12.25 08:01, Tom Lane wrote:
> So their gettext handles PRIu64 and PRIu32 and nothing else.
>
> What to do now? I could revert 8c498479d and followups, but
> I sure don't want to. A stopgap measure to make the farm look
> green would be to add a variant expected-file that accepts
> this output, but yech. Thoughts?

I think that means that that gettext implementation is not currently
supportable. So either we revert our PRI* use except those two
(unlikely), or those buildfarm members should disable NLS.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2025-12-15 19:33:42 Re: Get rid of "Section.N.N.N" on DOCs
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2025-12-15 19:26:11 Re: [PATCH] Fix severe performance regression with gettext 0.20+ on Windows