64 bits integers in direct-sqlite about direct-sqlite HOT 8 CLOSED

What is the specific problem? Based on http://www.sqlite.org/c3ref/int64.html, it looks like the only way sqlite3_int64 could be less than 64-bits would be if someone would #define SQLITE_INT64_TYPE to be a type with less than 64-bits (ie. force the build to use something else than 64-bit default types). Why would anyone do that? This doesn't seem like something we should try to defend ourselves against.

from direct-sqlite.

If SQLITE_INT64_TYPE is not defined, sqlite3_int64 defaults to long
long it. Do you think direct-sqlite will ever run in a platform where
long long int is more than 64 bits (say, 128 bits)? If not, this is
not an issue.

2013/9/14, Janne Hellsten [email protected]:

What is the specific problem? Based on
http://www.sqlite.org/c3ref/int64.html, it looks like the only way
sqlite3_int64 could be less than 64-bits would be if someone would #define
SQLITE_INT64_TYPE to be a type with less than 64-bits (ie. force the build
to use something else than 64-bit default types). Why would anyone do that?
This doesn't seem like something we should try to defend ourselves
against.

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#34 (comment)

from direct-sqlite.

I think you will have a hard time finding a platform where long long is larger than 64-bits. I think the SQLite defaults work just fine on platforms that support Haskell. I vote for closing this as not a bug.

from direct-sqlite.

Sure. I did find a message in a gcc c++ header saying "assume long
long no bigger than __int128". However, I could not find any platform,
supported by Haskell or not, where long long is supposed to be bigger
than 64 bits. There are even platforms where sqlite3 defines double as
integer. If you think it's paranoid to check for all these things, I
can't disagree.

2013/9/15, Janne Hellsten [email protected]:

I think you will have a hard time finding a platform where long long is
larger than 64-bits. I think the SQLite defaults work just fine on
platforms that support Haskell. I vote for closing this as not a bug.

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#34 (comment)

from direct-sqlite.

I maintain that this should be closed as not a bug. If it happens that a platform with > 64-bits comes around (w/ long long != 64-bits), I'm sure the SQLite header with these typedefs will be fixed accordingly. Anyhow, if you're really interested in pursuing this (IMO theoretical) possibility further, perhaps take it up with the upstream SQLite project?

from direct-sqlite.

I agree, of course. Just close this as not a bug. If I ever find a
platform where this is a problem, the upstream sqlite code is what
should be updated. Thanks.

2013/9/16, Janne Hellsten [email protected]:

I maintain that this should be closed as not a bug. If it happens that a
platform with > 64-bits comes around (w/ long long != 64-bits), I'm sure the
SQLite header with these typedefs will be fixed accordingly. Anyhow, if
you're really interested in pursuing this (IMO theoretical) possibility
further, perhaps take it up with the upstream SQLite project?

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#34 (comment)

from direct-sqlite.

I think only @IreneKnapp (the author) or you can close this. :)

from direct-sqlite.

Not a bug. Thank you all for the report and productive discussion, though!

from direct-sqlite.