On 2015-03-18 14:00:51 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Anyway, I think that it's not quite the same. For one thing, we're > talking about a GCC extension, not a type described by C99. We don't > care about snprintf support, for example.
I don't see that that has any consequence wrt Andreas' test. > For another, Andreas has chosen to lump together __int128 and unsigned > __int128 into one test, where the latter really doesn't receive > coverage. On my urging actually. It's pretty darn unlikely that only one variant will work. Useless configure tests just cost time. We're testing a gcc extension here, as you point out, it'll not just stop working for unsigned vs signed. The reason we need a link test (vs just a compile test) is that gcc links to helper functions to do math - even if they're not present on the target platform. Compiling will succeed, but linking won't. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
