Re: Windows 64 bit warnings

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: Windows 64 bit warnings
Дата
Msg-id 3740.1303146055@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Windows 64 bit warnings  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Ответы Re: Windows 64 bit warnings  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of sáb abr 16 21:46:44 -0300 2011:
>> The other, slightly more serious case, is at 
>> src/test/regress/pg_regress.c:2280, which is this code:
>> 
>> printf(_("running on port %d with pid %lu\n"),
>> port, (unsigned long) postmaster_pid);
>> 
>> Here the postmaster_pid is in fact a HANDLE which is 8 bytes, and so it 
>> should probably be cast to an unsigned long long and  rendered with the 
>> format %llu in Win64.

> Is this "uint64" and UINT64_FORMAT?

Considering that this is a purely informational printout, I don't see
any reason to give a damn about the possibility of high-order bits in
the HANDLE being dropped.  And it's not an especially good idea to stick
UINT64_FORMAT into a translatable string, because of the platform
dependency that creates.

I think all we need here is a way to shut up the overly-anal-retentive
warning.  I would have expected that explicit cast to be enough,
actually, but apparently it's not.  Ideas?
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Greg Stark
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Evaluation of secondary sort key.
Следующее
От: "Joshua D. Drake"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Formatting Curmudgeons WAS: MMAP Buffers