Re: odbc/UnixWare 7.1.1: No Go.

Can I get a go/nogo decision on whether these two functions can be #if'd
out for 7.1?

Thanks.

LER

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 3/22/01, 4:02:45 PM, Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org> wrote regarding Re:
[HACKERS] odbc/UnixWare 7.1.1: No Go. :

> OK, it *IS* just a WARNING that the symbols are undefined.

> SO, can we get the _fini/_init stuff commented/taken out for 7.1?

> LER

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

> On 3/22/01, 3:38:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote regarding Re:
> [HACKERS] odbc/UnixWare 7.1.1: No Go. :

> > Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org> writes:
> > > My question is WHY are we using -Bsymbolic and/or -z text anyway?
> > > These options don't appear to buy us anything but grief on SVR[45] ELF
> > > systems..

> > I have no idea what -z text means to your linker, but if it has a
> > -Bsymbolic option then it's a good bet that you need that. The ODBC
> > driver contains some function names that duplicate names in the unixODBC
> > driver manager. The driver's own references to these functions *must*
> > be resolved to its own routines and not the manager's, else havoc
> > ensues. But for some reason, the other way is the default on many
> > platforms.

> > Do not assume that you have this right just because the build succeeds.
> > I found in testing on HPUX that not only could you build a wrongly
> > linked driver, but it would actually load and connect. Only certain
> > kinds of queries exhibited the problem. In short: better test it before
> > you claim you have it fixed.

> > regards, tom lane

> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster