Tom Lane írta:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes:
>
>> I'm not sure how portable is the LONG_BIT business.
>>
>
> I think checking SIZEOF_LONG would be preferred, since that's what
> we use elsewhere. Although actually I wonder why this code exists
> at all --- wouldn't it be easier to make these depend on "int64"?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Don't ask me why ECPGt_long_long and ECPGt_unsigned_long_long
exist. But they do, and the libecpg code has some
#ifdef HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT_64
surrounding code handling them. Maybe it would've been better to be
consistent with that coding.
--
Bible has answers for everything. Proof:
"But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more
than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:37) - basics of digital technology.
"May your kingdom come" - superficial description of plate tectonics
----------------------------------
Zoltán Böszörményi
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
http://www.postgresql.at/
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
