| From: | Reinhard Max <max(at)suse(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Compiler options for plperl |
| Date: | 2002-11-06 08:27:52 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0211060914590.29657-100000@wotan.suse.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Tue, 5 Nov 2002 at 23:41, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Reinhard Max writes:
>
> > Would it work for you, if only the preprocessor macro definitions were
> > derived from perl?
>
> Nope. I don't want to trust anything that comes from Perl.
Me neither, but I think there is no other chance.
> Why not just define _GNU_SOURCE in some strategic place? (But
> please not on the command line.)
As far as I understood our Perl guy, anything that embeds Perl _has_
to (or at least _should_) be compiled with the same preprocessor
defines. It might depend on the platform and compile-time
configuration of Perl which defines are needed for a particular
installation.
So why not let Perl itself tell what switches it needs?
cu
Reinhard
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-11-06 15:42:00 | Re: 20020822_02_pitr.patch.gz |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-11-05 23:58:16 | Re: swedish translation |