| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu (Thomas G(dot) Lockhart) |
| Cc: | hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] int8 type -- call for porting results! |
| Date: | 1998-08-16 15:03:36 |
| Message-ID: | 5225.903279816@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> I wonder if we can try enabling int8's for all gcc compilers? The only
>> machines that might break on are other 64-bit machines (like some
>> SGI's?).
> Yep, should work.
Autoconf, my boys, think autoconf. This sort of guess-and-hope
configuration is exactly what autoconf was invented to prevent.
I'll gin up a few lines of autoconf test code and send them in.
I'd suggest we say that the autoconf test will deliver the
following symbols in config.h:
HAVE_LONG_INT_64 # defined if "long int" works and is 8 bytes
HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT_64 # defined if "long long int" works and is 8 bytes
Are there any other possibilities to worry about?
How hard should the test code try to make sure that int64 actually
works? Judging from Tom's comments, we'd better try a multiply and
a divide at least.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 1998-08-16 15:30:56 | Re: [HACKERS] Psql doesn't allow multiple action rules |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-08-16 14:34:02 | What I'm working on |