Re: Preferred way to define 64-bit constants?
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Preferred way to define 64-bit constants? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAEYLb_WEtxWj3cdoy4JH5FePkB0E0hxE9qe-Y86Xb11WA=twxg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Preferred way to define 64-bit constants? (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 24 June 2012 18:23, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > I just committed the patch to change XLogRecPtr into a 64-bit constant, and > I did this in the patch: > > #define XLogSegmentsPerXLogId (0x100000000LL / XLOG_SEG_SIZE) > > But I started to wonder, is that LL representation the preferred way to > define 64-bit integer constants? I thought it is, but now that I grep > around, I don't see any constants like that in the source tree. This looks to be a long long int literal. That's only specified in the C99 standard, as well as GNU C. It may very well not be a problem in practice, but I'm told that some very esoteric compilers could baulk at things like that. http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Long-Long.html -- Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: