Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: compiling pg 7.0.3 on sco 5.0.5

From: Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Billy G(dot) Allie" <bga(at)mug(dot)org>, "Arno A(dot) Karner" <karner(at)tnss(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: compiling pg 7.0.3 on sco 5.0.5
Date: 2000-12-04 15:33:58
Message-ID: 20001204093358.A9356@lerami.lerctr.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
* Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> [001204 09:27]:
> "Billy G. Allie" <bga(at)mug(dot)org> writes:
> > ... The DISABLE_COMPLEX_MACRO definition was originally put in to work
> > around a macro size limitation of the UnixWare 2.1 C compiler (and
> > later the SCO UDK (Universal Development Kit)).  If the gnu C compiler
> > is being used it should not be defined.
> 
> Hm.  Is anyone likely to still be using a version of that compiler that
> still has such limitations?
> 
> I ask because we recently pulled "#define DISABLE_COMPLEX_MACRO" from
> port/sco.h, on the grounds that various people were seeing more harm
> than good from it.  But I'm suddenly wondering whether those people
> might've been using gcc.  I wonder if
> 
> 	#ifndef __GNUC__
> 	#define DISABLE_COMPLEX_MACRO
> 	#endif
> 
> in port/sco.h would be the smart way to go.
Based on my running both CURRENT UDK and GCC on my UnixWare 7 boxes
with CURRENT sources, I think we may need to see if anyone complains. 

LER
> 
> 			regards, tom lane
-- 
Larry Rosenman                     http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812                 E-Mail: ler(at)lerctr(dot)org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dave SmithDate: 2000-12-04 15:36:35
Subject: Re: compiling pg 7.0.3 on sco 5.0.5
Previous:From: Junfeng ZhangDate: 2000-12-04 15:31:14
Subject: Re: Using Threads?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group