Re: OSX ?

From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Horacio Samaniego" <Horacio(at)unm(dot)edu>
Cc: <pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: OSX ?
Date: 2005-11-15 08:30:45
Message-ID: E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4E7DFF3@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-odbc

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-odbc-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-odbc-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
> Sent: 15 November 2005 03:03
> To: Horacio Samaniego
> Cc: pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [ODBC] OSX ?
>
> Darwin's /usr/include/sqltypes.h has
>
> /*
> * API declaration data types
> */
> typedef signed int SQLINTEGER;
> typedef unsigned int SQLUINTEGER;
>
> /*
> * SQL portable types for C
> */
> typedef long int SDWORD;
> typedef unsigned long int UDWORD;
>
> and gcc is entirely within its rights to complain that "int"
> != "long int".
>
> *Somebody* is not on the right page here. I would tend to fault
> psqlodbc for inconsistent declarations, but if it works on other
> platforms (as it seems to) maybe there is a general convention
> that SQLINTEGER == SDWORD etc? If so, Apple didn't get the word.

On Windows in SQLTypes we have:

typedef long SQLINTEGER;
typedef unsigned long SQLUINTEGER;

And

typedef long int SDWORD;
typedef unsigned long int UDWORD;

In this case I'd tend to go with Microsoft's definitions given that it's
their spec.

I do intend to work on porting psqlODBC to OSX in the not-to-distant
future, however it's not going to be right away I'm afraid, and for the
moment it will only be on Panther (which doesn't support Unicode ODBC).

Regards, Dave.

Browse pgsql-odbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Claus Scherschel 2005-11-15 08:47:34 Re: Invisible tables in Access 2000
Previous Message Anoop Kumar 2005-11-15 04:25:26 Re: Recommended ODBC version for compilation