Thread
-
Re: [HACKERS] int 8 on FreeBSD
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 1999-03-07T16:36:48Z
Kevin Lo <jwlo@ms11.hinet.net> writes: >> While compiling of 6.4.2 I've realized that int8's are not supported >> on FreeBSD by default. The Configure script looks if %ld or %lld >> will do the job but FreeBSD is using %qd as the long long int format. > Here are the patches I've used to enable int8 support. Actually, given the way that the 6.5 sources currently stand, the right long-term solution is to make two separate tests: (1) does the compiler do 64-bit arithmetic correctly, and if so then (2) does snprintf have a working format for the chosen type. If (1) passes but (2) fails we have a fallback: enable use of our own snprintf code. When I wrote the 6.4 configure test for int8, we hadn't yet developed that fallback, so there wasn't much point in distinguishing compiler support from library support. But now we should. If we do it this way then it doesn't matter a whole lot whether "%qd" is one of the tested alternatives or not ;-). I will pursue fixing things that way in the 6.5 sources. In the meantime, do we want to check Kevin's fixes into REL6_4, or is adding int8 support for more machines too low-priority to justify taking any chance of breaking 6.4.3? regards, tom lane
-
Re: [HACKERS] int 8 on FreeBSD
Marc Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 1999-03-07T23:05:39Z
On Sun, 7 Mar 1999, Tom Lane wrote: > I will pursue fixing things that way in the 6.5 sources. In the > meantime, do we want to check Kevin's fixes into REL6_4, or is adding > int8 support for more machines too low-priority to justify taking any > chance of breaking 6.4.3? Note that I commited int8 fixes to the v6.4.3 tree, and they are in the current beta3 tar file...did this mid-last week... Marc G. Fournier Systems Administrator @ hub.org primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org -
Re: [HACKERS] int 8 on FreeBSD
Michael Graff <explorer@flame.org> — 1999-03-08T02:05:30Z
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes: > On Sun, 7 Mar 1999, Tom Lane wrote: > > > I will pursue fixing things that way in the 6.5 sources. In the > > meantime, do we want to check Kevin's fixes into REL6_4, or is adding > > int8 support for more machines too low-priority to justify taking any > > chance of breaking 6.4.3? > > Note that I commited int8 fixes to the v6.4.3 tree, and they are in the > current beta3 tar file...did this mid-last week... Did you also change the #ifdef line to include __NetBSD__ for the %qd format? At least NetBSD/i386 uses that. Alpha might not, I'm not fully certain, but I think it will work with %qd. --Michael
-
Re: [HACKERS] int 8 on FreeBSD
Marc Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 1999-03-08T04:18:20Z
Try what I just commited now...its only in v6.5 sources though... I've modified it so that it checks for use of %lld, and if that fails, check for use of %qd, before it falls back to our homebrew snprintf... On 7 Mar 1999, Michael Graff wrote: > The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes: > > > On Sun, 7 Mar 1999, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > > I will pursue fixing things that way in the 6.5 sources. In the > > > meantime, do we want to check Kevin's fixes into REL6_4, or is adding > > > int8 support for more machines too low-priority to justify taking any > > > chance of breaking 6.4.3? > > > > Note that I commited int8 fixes to the v6.4.3 tree, and they are in the > > current beta3 tar file...did this mid-last week... > > Did you also change the #ifdef line to include __NetBSD__ for the %qd > format? At least NetBSD/i386 uses that. Alpha might not, I'm not > fully certain, but I think it will work with %qd. > > --Michael > Marc G. Fournier Systems Administrator @ hub.org primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org