Re: FW: [JDBC] BIGINT vs Java's long

On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Tom Lane wrote:

> Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com> writes:
> > I don't think my patch against recent sources would apply cleanly to 
> > older ones, and I didn't run the regression against it, but it seemed
> > to work, and is only a two line change in current source.
> 
> This patch needs more work.  You are assuming that integer division on
> negative numbers works the same everywhere, which it most definitely
> does not (the direction of truncation was unspecified until C99).
> The overflow check will fail on platforms where negative results
> truncate towards minus infinity.  So we need a different way of checking
> for overflow.
> 
> Right off the bat I'm not coming up with an implementation that's both
> portable and able to accept INT64_MIN, but this has got to be a solved
> problem.  Look around, maybe in the GNU or BSD C libraries...

Actually, that wasn't a suggested patch for real inclusion (I should have
mentioned that) but instead for the user in question to try.  I'll look
and get something complete for this. :)