Re: Can't use long long variables?

[Philip Mötteli]

Hi


Am 26.02.2004 um 21:30 schrieb Chris B. Vetter:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:15:52 +0100
> Philip Mötteli <Philip.Moetteli@tele2.ch> wrote:
> > Am 26.02.2004 um 20:19 schrieb Chris B. Vetter:
> > > Looks like this comes from NSScanner -scanLongLong:
> > > Apparently, -base configure on SuSE box doesn't define
> > > LONG_LONG_MAX.
> > And what could a non expert for configure do to solve the problem at
> > least temporarely?
>
> I don't think there's a switch to configure for LONG LONG.
>
> Configure only checks whether LONG_LONG_MAX or LLONG_MAX (Solaris & 
> BSD)
> are defined in limits.h,

Yes, actually in limits.h, there's no LONG_LONG_MAX defined. And 
configure gives the following otuput in base:

        checking whether precompiler handles LONG_LONG_MAX... no


> so you may have to check whether SuSE uses one
> of these or uses a different definition.

These are the definitions SuSE has in 'limits.h':

#define NR_OPEN         1024
#define NGROUPS_MAX       32    /* supplemental group IDs are available 
*/
#define ARG_MAX       131072    /* # bytes of args + environ for exec() 
*/
#define CHILD_MAX        999    /* no limit :-) */
#define OPEN_MAX         256    /* # open files a process may have */
#define LINK_MAX         127    /* # links a file may have */
#define MAX_CANON        255    /* size of the canonical input queue */
#define MAX_INPUT        255    /* size of the type-ahead buffer */
#define NAME_MAX         255    /* # chars in a file name */
#define PATH_MAX        4096    /* # chars in a path name including nul 
*/
#define PIPE_BUF        4096    /* # bytes in atomic write to a pipe */
#define XATTR_NAME_MAX   255    /* # chars in an extended attribute 
name */
#define XATTR_SIZE_MAX 65536    /* size of an extended attribute value 
(64k) */
#define XATTR_LIST_MAX 65536    /* size of extended attribute namelist 
(64k) */
#define RTSIG_MAX         32


> If the latter, this would have
> to be added to the checks.

It doesn't seem, that there's a suitable one, is it?


> Alternatively you could try to find a work-around in your tool to not
> use -scanLongLong: (probably easier, if that's an option)

I don't remember using it. Could it be, that it's invoked by another 
method, e. g. -scanInt or -scanLong?


Thanks
Phil