Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vLYfq-003Jit-26 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 03:16:02 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vLYfp-00AKFg-10 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 03:16:01 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vLYfp-00AKFY-06 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 03:16:01 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vLYfn-000I2C-1Y for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 03:16:01 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 5AJ3FsDC1377513; Tue, 18 Nov 2025 22:15:54 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Thomas Munro cc: Peter Eisentraut , Kyotaro Horiguchi , pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: PRI?64 vs Visual Studio (2022) In-reply-to: References: <20250331.152829.1921392690375275165.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> <001bdc3b-ef94-4f24-b017-ac8ff0a2ea55@eisentraut.org> <1372793.1763519315@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Thomas Munro message dated "Wed, 19 Nov 2025 15:50:44 +1300" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1377511.1763522154.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 22:15:54 -0500 Message-ID: <1377512.1763522154@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Thomas Munro writes: > Perhaps meson/configure should do a po -> mo -> gettext() check with a > canned test message? That'd also make sure your msgfmt and libintl > are compatible, something I worried about when I wrote about musl > recently. No, I don't think that's a good approach. That is testing the library available at configure time, not the one you are actually running with (possibly years later and on a different machine, even without considering cross-compilation cases). I think we should do it honestly with a regression test. It doesn't need to be very complicated --- I think checking one message in one translation is sufficient, so long as it includes a PRI?64 usage. regards, tom lane