Re: PRI?64 vs Visual Studio (2022)

Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>

From: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>

To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org

Date: 2025-11-23T23:03:53Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

v2-0001-Drop-HAVE_BUGGY_STRTOF-for-MinGW.patch (text/x-patch)
v2-0002-Drop-HAVE_BUGGY_STRTOF-for-Cygwin.patch (text/x-patch)
v2-0003-Drop-resultmap-mechanism-from-pg_regress.patch (text/x-patch)

On Sun, Nov 23, 2025 at 4:25 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> > That'd leave only Cygwin with HAVE BUGGY_STRTOF.  Perhaps they have
> > fixed their implementation[1]?  Here's an experimental patch to drop
> > all remnants, which could be used to find out.  No Windows/Cygwin
> > here.  Hmm, what if we just commit it anyway?  If their strtof() is
> > still broken and someone out there is running the tests and sees this
> > test fail, why shouldn't they take that up with libc at this stage?
>
> Hmm, we could get rid of the whole resultmap mechanism ...

Yeah.  I thought I'd see what blowback my
if-Cygwin-strtof()-really-is-still-broken-they-should-fix-it argument
attracted before spending the time to nuke all those lines too.
Here's that patch.  We could always revert resultmap we found a new
reason to need it, but I hope we wouldn't.