Re: Re: RELEASE STOPPER? nonportable int64 constants in pg_crc.c - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Re: RELEASE STOPPER? nonportable int64 constants in pg_crc.c
Date
Msg-id 15342.985237661@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Re: RELEASE STOPPER? nonportable int64 constants in pg_crc.c  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Can we use (long long) rather than LL?
>> 
>> No.

> Can I ask how 0LL is different from (long long)0?

The former is a long-long-int constant ab initio.  The latter is an int
constant that is subsequently casted to long long.  If you write(long long) 12345678901234567890
I'd expect a compiler that warns about larger-than-int constants to
produce a warning anyway, since the warning is only looking at the
constant and not its context of use.  (If the warning had that much
intelligence, it'd not be complaining now.)
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: RPM building (was regression on RedHat)
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: odbc/UnixWare 7.1.1: No Go.