Re: gcc3.3 compliance

From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: "Andreas Pflug" <Andreas(dot)Pflug(at)web(dot)de>, <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Jean-Michel POURE" <jm(dot)poure(at)freesurf(dot)fr>
Subject: Re: gcc3.3 compliance
Date: 2003-06-13 08:34:02
Message-ID: 03AF4E498C591348A42FC93DEA9661B83AF112@mail.vale-housing.co.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgadmin-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:Andreas(dot)Pflug(at)web(dot)de]
> Sent: 13 June 2003 09:09
> To: Dave Page; pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org; Jean-Michel POURE
> Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] gcc3.3 compliance
>
>
> Dave Page wrote:
>
> This fix breaks win32 compilation, and I really don't know
> what kind of
> foolishness gcc does here. All GetXXX pairs are defined equally, but
> only GetLong will show that problem.
> The argument to GetLong is an int, and ColNumber returns int, that
> should make a perfect fit. With the fix applied, msdev will complain
> "two similar conversions". Maybe it helps if all GetXXX(int)
> are defined
> as GetXXX(const int); please check this.

Hmm, see what you mean. In my bleary-eyed attempt to fix it I misread
the code and managed to fix it for me with a non-fix!

I'll try the const fix...

Regards, Dave.

Browse pgadmin-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Page 2003-06-13 08:42:06 Re: gcc3.3 compliance
Previous Message Jean-Michel POURE 2003-06-13 08:18:38 Re: gcc3.3 compliance