| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, Elliot Chance <elliotchance(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: C++ keywords in headers (was Re: [GENERAL] #include <funcapi.h>) |
| Date: | 2010-12-27 18:21:37 |
| Message-ID: | 18101.1293474097@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
BTW, the cpluspluscheck script invokes g++ with -fno-operator-names,
saying
# -fno-operator-names omits the definition of bitand and bitor, which
# collide with varbit.h. Could be fixed, if one were so inclined.
I just confirmed that those two function definitions are the only issues
that currently show up if one removes the switch. Now, I'm not that
concerned about whether C++ users can include varbit.h ... but if we're
really going to use this technique to check whether C++ can include
headers, I think we've got to get rid of that switch, or we'll get
bitten elsewhere.
I propose renaming bitand() and bitor() to bit_and and bit_or() ...
any objections?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2010-12-27 18:24:54 | Problem with restoring from backup on 9.0.2 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-27 18:07:03 | Re: C++ keywords in headers (was Re: [GENERAL] #include <funcapi.h>) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joel Jacobson | 2010-12-27 18:23:06 | UPDATE pg_catalog.pg_proc.prosrc OK? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-27 18:07:03 | Re: C++ keywords in headers (was Re: [GENERAL] #include <funcapi.h>) |