Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm. It compiles without warnings, but the new ppport.h is about 100K
>> larger than the old one :-(. The change we seem to actually need is
>> just to put "#ifndef PERL_UNUSED_DECL" around the attempted declaration
>> of that macro, so I'm inclined to just commit that rather than buy into
>> everything else that seems to have been done to PPPort lately.
> Well, if we start to use newer APIs at some stage, or if older APIs get
> replaced and moved into ppport.h, we will probably have to upgrade. That
> doesn't seem to be the case for now, so the minimal change seems
> reasonable - in fact Devrim asked me about this a week or so ago and in
> effect that's what I suggested to him, although I never heard back from him.
A more radical solution is to remove ppport.h from our distribution
entirely, and have the Makefile generate it at build time, using that
same little bit of script you showed. Or is Devel::PPPort not part of
the standard Perl distribution?
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2006-05-30 15:16:59|
|Subject: Re: plperl's ppport.h out of date?|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-05-30 14:36:29|
|Subject: Re: 64bit build vs 32 bit build |