Re: BUG #15080: ecpg on windows doesn't define HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
Cc: Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>, jallen(at)americansavingslife(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #15080: ecpg on windows doesn't define HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT
Date: 2018-02-24 19:21:23
Message-ID: 16785.1519500083@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> Solution.pm has this:

> #if (_MSC_VER > 1200)
> #define HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT_64 1
> #define ENABLE_THREAD_SAFETY 1
> #endif

> from which HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT seems to be suspiciously missing?

I remember noticing that discrepancy recently when I was chasing something
else about int64 support. It certainly looks wrong, but not being much of
an ecpg user I was hesitant to touch it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Meskes 2018-02-24 19:49:26 Re: BUG #15080: ecpg on windows doesn't define HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT
Previous Message Andrew Gierth 2018-02-24 19:09:15 Re: BUG #15080: ecpg on windows doesn't define HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT