Re: A Windows x64 ****t of PostgreSQL

chris wrote:
>>  C++0x standards
>> committee where they finalized long long as being required to be 8
> 
> AFAIK, we oughtn't care what C++ standards say, because PostgreSQL is
> implemented in C, and therefore needs to follow what the *C* standards
> say.

I agree the C++ standards should matter one bit to postgresql, but
AFAIK C99 also says "long long" is at least 64 bits too -- but if
we're talking C99, we'd be better off using whichever of int64_t
or int_least64_t or int_fast64_t we really meant anyway.  Since we
don't I assume we're trying to be compatible with pre-c99 C too
which AFAICT means you can't assume much about "long long" either.
Pre-C99 you can't really count on much.  I've spent time where "int"
was 20 bits; and on another platform where int was 32 bits and
long 40 bits.

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers