Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom, can you remind me where we left this?
It's done ...
regards, tom lane
Tom, can you remind me where we left this?
> Zeugswetter Andreas SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> But that is unfortunately not the problem. Looks like yet
> >> another broken compiler to me :-(
>
> > Ok, the comparison ((int) time) > ((int) 0x8001) is the problem.
> > Reading the comme
Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is the original issue support for 0x10... as the smallest integer, as
> opposed to -MAX_INT? As long as we continue to map the "reserved values"
> to the upper and lower range of allowed values so they are unlikely to
> appear under normal circumstance
> >> My solution would be to use INT_MIN for all ports, which has the advantage
> >> that the above problematic comparison can be converted to !=,
> >> since no integer will be smaller than INT_MIN.
> > I agree. When I was looking at this code this morning, I was wondering
> > what INT_MIN was su
>> My solution would be to use INT_MIN for all ports, which has the advantage
>> that the above problematic comparison can be converted to !=,
>> since no integer will be smaller than INT_MIN.
> I agree. When I was looking at this code this morning, I was wondering
> what INT_MIN was supposed t
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> But that is unfortunately not the problem. Looks like yet
>> another broken compiler to me :-(
> Ok, the comparison ((int) time) > ((int) 0x8001) is the problem.
> Reading the comment again and again, I have come to the conclusion,
> that
