On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 09:07:45AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> > > Since abs() is declared to return just an int. I don't see it anywhere > >> > > in our tree and I'm not sure how portable it actually is, but labs() is > >> > > supposedly in C89, so perhaps that should be used here instead? > >> > > >> > I just removed the "l" for now, since %02d is used to print the result > >> > of abs() elsewhere. If that isn't right, someone can re-fix my fix. > >> > >> Works for me. I'm no longer seeing the warning. > > > > Oh, I see now that my commit generated a conflict and didn't apply. > > Should we try labs() or just ignore it? > > If the result is guaranteed to fit in an integer, then there's no > reason to adopt labs. If you think there are platforms where it would > overflow int but fit into long, then there might be a reason to change > it. All things being equal, it'd be nicer if we didn't need to use > labs(), because every function we depend on is another thing that can > break on some obscure platform.
I think abs() is fine; there is no risk of overflow from mod; thanks. -- Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
