From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Billy G(dot) Allie" <bga(at)mug(dot)org> |
Cc: | "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 06:00:30 |
Message-ID: | 1910.975909630@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"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.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Don Baccus | 2000-12-04 06:03:11 | Re: beta testing version |
Previous Message | Gary MacDougall | 2000-12-04 04:17:14 | Re: beta testing version |