Re: PRI?64 vs Visual Studio (2022)
| От | Thomas Munro |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: PRI?64 vs Visual Studio (2022) |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+hUKG+pELXCHkAKAkbF-b5ot=imuoCCoYqhVSX4=pN_VtA3EA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: PRI?64 vs Visual Studio (2022) (Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>) |
| Ответы |
Re: PRI?64 vs Visual Studio (2022)
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 8:29 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote: > On 15.12.25 08:01, Tom Lane wrote: > > So their gettext handles PRIu64 and PRIu32 and nothing else. > > > > What to do now? I could revert 8c498479d and followups, but > > I sure don't want to. A stopgap measure to make the farm look > > green would be to add a variant expected-file that accepts > > this output, but yech. Thoughts? > > I think that means that that gettext implementation is not currently > supportable. So either we revert our PRI* use except those two > (unlikely), or those buildfarm members should disable NLS. Yeah. My goal in mentioning the problem back when it was just a problem in theory (we had no test, the Alpine packages disable nls (perhaps it used to be *more* broken, if they did that before we used PRI?)) was to try to see if someone closer to these musl distros wanted to have a crack at fixing it, since it looks pretty close to being usable. But now that it's a problem in practice, it's hard to disagree with Peter's take. It could be reenabled any time it works enough to pass the test.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: