Bruce Momjian wrote:
>OK, here is what happened. In March 2005, we got reports of compile
>problems on Win32 using NLS:
>(See the quoted text under the posted text as well.) Basically,
>libintl.h on Win32 replaces *printf calls with its own versions, and
>does it using macros, _just_ like we do. This of course causes
>conflicts and the system fails to compile. The _fix_ was to disable
>port/*printf on Win32 when using NLS because NLS wants to use its own
>*printf. I _assumed_ that libintl.h did this so it could use its own
>routines that understood %$, but never verified that. It didn't seem we
>had any choice to fix this, and got no problem reports about %$ not
>working until yours.
>After over a month with no solution I added the code as you see it now:
>Oh, and it was Andrew Dunstan who worked on this, not Magnus. (Sorry
>Magnus, Hello Andrew.)
>Anyway, I think the big question is, was the pginstaller built with a
>libintl that replaces *printf, and is it an *printf that doesn't
>understand positional parameters, and so, how can we fix it.
Well , I diagnosed the problem - you're on your own as far as the
"solution" goes ;-)
On thing that seems clear to me is that we need a way of testing NLS
>Would it work to modify c.h so that it #include's libintl.h, then #undefs
>these macros, then #includes port.h to define 'em the way we want?
>Some or all of this might need to be #ifdef WIN32, but that seems like
>a reasonably noninvasive solution if it can work.
IIRC last time I tried this it didn't work too well ;-( I will have
another go. I think it's the best way to go.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Paul Lindner||Date: 2005-12-04 16:25:20|
|Subject: Re: Upcoming PG re-releases|
|Previous:||From: Paul Lindner||Date: 2005-12-04 15:57:15|
|Subject: MIN() performance regression 8.0 -> 8.1|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2005-12-04 18:53:06|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] snprintf() argument reordering not working|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2005-12-04 04:10:18|
|Subject: Re: return can contains any row or record functions|