okay, this was the only one I was waiting to hear on ... the fix committed
this afternoon for the regression test, did/does it fix the problem? are
we safe on a proper RC1 now?
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> Zeugswetter Andreas SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Recent changes in pg_crc.c (64 bit CRC) introduced non portable constants of the
>form:
>
> > -c -o pg_crc.o pg_crc.c
> > 287 | 0x0000000000000000, 0x42F0E1EBA9EA3693,
> > ............................a..................
> > a - 1506-207 (W) Integer constant 0x42F0E1EBA9EA3693 out of range.
>
> Please observe that this is a warning, not an error. Your proposed
> fix is considerably worse than the disease, because it will break on
> compilers that do not recognize "LL" constants, to say nothing of
> machines where L is correct and LL is some yet wider datatype.
>
> I'm aware that some compilers will produce warnings about these
> constants, but there should not be any that fail completely, since
> (a) we won't be compiling this code unless we've proven that the
> compiler supports a 64-bit-int datatype, and (b) the C standard
> forbids a compiler from requiring width suffixes (cf. 6.4.4.1 in C99).
>
> I don't think it's a good tradeoff to risk breaking some platforms in
> order to suppress warnings from overly anal-retentive compilers.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
>
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: [EMAIL PROTECTED] secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
