Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-hackers-win32] snprintf causes regression tests to fail

2005-03-01 Thread Bruce Momjian
Nicolai Tufar wrote: > On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 17:45:31 -0500, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nicolai Tufar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Just out of curiosity, do either HAVE_INT64 or HAVE_UINT64 get set > > in pg_config.h? The observed symptoms would be explained if typedef > > int64 were

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-hackers-win32] snprintf causes regression tests to fail

2005-03-01 Thread Nicolai Tufar
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 17:45:31 -0500, Tom Lane > Just out of curiosity, do either HAVE_INT64 or HAVE_UINT64 get set > in pg_config.h? pg_config.h is attached. What drew my attention is the following declaration: /* Define to 1 if `long long int' works and is 64 bits. */ #define HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-hackers-win32] snprintf causes regression tests to fail

2005-03-01 Thread Tom Lane
Nicolai Tufar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Amazingly enough HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT_64 is > defined when compilation comes to src/port/snprintf.c > but the result is still wrong. I looked into configure.in > but the check for HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT_64 is too > complicated for me to understand. Bruce, could