Current ecpg sources will not build on a compiler that doesn't accept
"long long int".  They are also overly optimistic about the prospects
of having strtoull() in libc.  I think some autoconf work is needed
here.

			regards, tom lane

Wed, 20 Sep 2000 11:20:05 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
loss of portability in ecpg
Tom Lane writes:

> Current ecpg sources will not build on a compiler that doesn't accept
> "long long int".  They are also overly optimistic about the prospects
> of having strtoull() in libc.  I think some autoconf work is needed
> here.

Will look.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/


Wed, 20 Sep 2000 19:46:28 +0200 (CEST)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: loss of portability in ecpg
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 11:20:05AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Current ecpg sources will not build on a compiler that doesn't accept
> "long long int".  They are also overly optimistic about the prospects
> of having strtoull() in libc.  I think some autoconf work is needed
> here.

Sorry about that. I intented to tell you about these changes since I do not
know autoconf enough to make the changes myself but real life
interfered after I committed them. And then I simply forgot about it. My
fault.

Please take my apologies.

Michael
-- 
Michael Meskes
Michael@Fam-Meskes.De
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire!
Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!

Thu, 21 Sep 2000 10:12:02 -0700
Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org>
Re: loss of portability in ecpg