Fix compilation of datafusion-cli on 32bit targets#10594
Merged
alamb merged 1 commit intoapache:mainfrom May 21, 2024
Merged
Conversation
jonahgao
approved these changes
May 21, 2024
Member
jonahgao
left a comment
jonahgao
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me!
cargo build --target=i686-unknown-linux-gnu can succeed now.
And for larger sizes, its execution meets expectations.
$ ./target/i686-unknown-linux-gnu/debug/datafusion-cli --memory-limit 5g
error: Invalid value "5g" for '--memory-limit <MEMORY_LIMIT>': Memory pool size '5g' is too large
Contributor
|
Thank you @nathaniel-daniel and @jonahgao |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Which issue does this PR close?
Closes #10552.
Rationale for this change
This PR fixes compilation of the datafusion-cli crate on 32bit targets.
What changes are included in this PR?
A constant assumed that a usize was at least 64 bits wide. I changed the constant type to be a u64, before translating it into a usize later on, throwing an error if it overflows.
Are these changes tested?
These changes are not tested. I assumed adding CI for 32bit targets was too invasive for this PR.
Are there any user-facing changes?
There should be no user-facing changes or breaking changes.