| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jim Gray <jim(dot)gray(at)bull(dot)com>, Pg Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #6238: ECPG converts "long long" to long on Windows |
| Date: | 2011-10-05 21:12:30 |
| Message-ID: | 201110052112.p95LCUk28021@momjian.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mar oct 04 10:39:27 -0300 2011:
> > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
>
> > >> 2010 on Windows, which accepts "long long" to mean the same thing as
> > >> __int64, but ECPG doesn't recognize the later.
> > >> May be related to BUG #5464: ecpg on 64bit system converts "long long" to
> > >> "long"
> > >
> > > Well, this bug is (at least I don't know otherwise) fixed for more than a year.
> > > Maybe the configure test doesn't work on Windows? I don't know.
> >
> > On at least some Windows builds, configure isn't used at all... so
> > whatever values is being used would come from the MSVC build system.
>
> In fact, pg_config.h.win32 does not have the HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT symbol
> at all -- only HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT_64 is in there.
Is this wrong?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-10-05 22:01:58 | Re: BUG #6226: Broken foreign key stored on database (parent deleted with children still readable, BUG#6225 Update) |
| Previous Message | Daniel Cristian Cruz | 2011-10-05 17:45:23 | Re: BUG #6226: Broken foreign key stored on database (parent deleted with children still readable, BUG#6225 Update) |