| From: | Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Adriaan Joubert <a(dot)joubert(at)albourne(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Postgresql <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ecpg long int problem on alpha + fix |
| Date: | 2001-04-05 08:01:54 |
| Message-ID: | 20010405100154.A6837@feivel.credativ.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 09:13:49AM +0300, Adriaan Joubert wrote:
> I think we probably do need the CPP defines from my patch in there, so
Not exactly. The test in typename.c does not make sense at all. It will be
removed. But there are other places where it is needed. Or can I safely
assume that if HAVE_LONG_INT_64 is defined then HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT_64 also
is true, although not defined?
Hmm, thinking about it, how about using long instead of long long if
HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT_64 is undefined?
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael(at)Fam-Meskes(dot)De
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire!
Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Meskes | 2001-04-05 08:40:03 | Re: ecpg long int problem on alpha + fix |
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2001-04-05 08:01:53 | AW: ecpg long int problem on alpha + fix |