* Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> [001204 09:27]:
> "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
> in port/sco.h would be the smart way to go.
Based on my running both CURRENT UDK and GCC on my UnixWare 7 boxes
with CURRENT sources, I think we may need to see if anyone complains.
> regards, tom lane
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler(at)lerctr(dot)org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Dave Smith||Date: 2000-12-04 15:36:35|
|Subject: Re: compiling pg 7.0.3 on sco 5.0.5|
|Previous:||From: Junfeng Zhang||Date: 2000-12-04 15:31:14|
|Subject: Re: Using Threads?|