Message-ID: <d8d68452-7195-41cf-a31b-e660f5ac6e75@iki.fi>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 16:34:57 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
 Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com>,
 Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
References: <ME3P282MB3166F9D1F71F787929C0C7E7B6312@ME3P282MB3166.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <20240322165305.6zrtxcmzdrywvmsu@awork3.anarazel.de>
 <ME3P282MB3166D876E9CB83009727A5ECB6312@ME3P282MB3166.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <944094.1711128356@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+hUKG+CR05ACFujUbeAd-yM+nNJBSpnyB=q3vbriCJuoSu9Ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <1229869.1711160593@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+hUKG+ZwX-reVMHak3yo-63rrh9AJwEVGW4rCbsoLeSKO54Pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <7cf1dcb7-306f-4418-bf25-bdc75130db10@eisentraut.org>
 <CA+hUKGKXEdVSfR6UHXfR3tSQ+TfBNk-ssYmO2F0wCdw7qcx86Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <CA+hUKGKXEdVSfR6UHXfR3tSQ+TfBNk-ssYmO2F0wCdw7qcx86Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/d8d68452-7195-41cf-a31b-e660f5ac6e75%40iki.fi>
Precedence: bulk

On 18/04/2024 23:29, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 8:47 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
>> I'm not sure I understand the problem here.  Do you mean that in theory
>> a platform's PRId64 could be something other than "l" or "ll"?
> 
> Yes.  I don't know why anyone would do that, and the systems I checked
> all have the obvious definitions, eg "ld", "lld" etc.  Perhaps it's an
> acceptable risk?  It certainly gives us a tidier result.

Could we have a configure check or static assertion for that?

> For discussion, here is a variant that fully embraces <inttypes.h> and
> the PRI*64 macros.

Looks good to me.

Personally, I find "PRId64" pretty unreadable. "INT64_MODIFIER" wasn't 
nice either, though, and following standards is good, so I'm sure I'll 
get used to it.

They're both less readable than INT64_FORMAT and "%lld", which we use in 
most places, though. Perhaps "%lld" and casting the arguments to "long 
long" would be more readable in the places where this patch replaces 
INT64_MODIFIER with PRI*64, too.

-- 
Heikki Linnakangas
Neon (https://neon.tech)