RE: BUG #15080: ecpg on windows doesn't define HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT
От | Huong Dangminh |
---|---|
Тема | RE: BUG #15080: ecpg on windows doesn't define HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 75DB81BEEA95B445AE6D576A0A5C9E936A76F119@BPXM05GP.gisp.nec.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #15080: ecpg on windows doesn't define HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #15080: ecpg on windows doesn't define HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Hi, Thanks for working a lot in this thread. > From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us] > I wrote: > > BTW, after further digging I am suspicious that this means that we > > need to propagate HAVE_STRTOLL and HAVE_STRTOULL into ecpg_config.h > > not only pg_config.h. I'm not totally sure which compiles include > > just the former not the latter. > > After looking closer, ecpg only examines HAVE_STRTOLL and HAVE_STRTOULL > in ecpglib/data.c, which does include the main config file, so we should > be good on that. I agreed. > > I'm going to wait and see if the buildfarm is unhappy before trying to > > change that, though. It will help prove whether we're actually > > getting useful test coverage. > > Nonetheless, all the 32-bit buildfarm critters are falling over, and the > reason is now obvious: HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT isn't getting defined in the test > code, because neither pg_config.h nor ecpg_config.h ever get included > there. > > As a stopgap measure, we could stick #include <ecpg_config.h> into just > that one test file. I notice however that there are more problems. > In particular, sqltypes.h supposes it has access to HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT_64, > which seems utterly naive. You have done it as the "hot-fix", thanks. Also thanks for fixing the failed of "Buildfarm member dromedary". # I also feel curious about it. > It seems like really we need <ecpg_config.h> in sqltypes.h at least, and > if we don't want more bugs of the same ilk in future, it'd be wise to stick > it into something that's included by all ecpg-generated code, like ecpglib.h. > I am however worried about invasion of client namespace if we do that, so > not quite sure what to do here. Thoughts? I am also inclined to the above, by the way. >> Is this another problem in linux? Or am I wrong something? > > That would depend on what platform you're running on: if it's 64-bit > then "long int" is probably 64 bits wide, making that a perfectly valid answer. Thanks, I was misunderstood. Thanks and best regards, --- Dang Minh Huong NEC Solution Innovators, Ltd. http://www.nec-solutioninnovators.co.jp/en/
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: