From: | Pete Forman <pete(dot)forman(at)westerngeco(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Marko Kreen <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: patch: contrib/pgcrypto sanity |
Date: | 2001-01-08 10:03:25 |
Message-ID: | 14937.36973.514419.137737@kryten.bedford.waii.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Marko Kreen writes:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 04:06:09AM +0200, Marko Kreen wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 08:09:07PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Marko Kreen <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee> writes:
> > > > Which basically changes u_int*_t -> uint*_t, so now it does
> > > > not compile neither under Debian 2.2 nor under NetBSD 1.5
> > > > which is platform independent¸ all right.
> > >
> > > Well, that's annoying. I guess those platforms are out of step
> > > with the C99 standard, which specifies uint*_t not u_int*_t
> > > (cf. C99 7.4.1.1). I agree with your solution of switching to
> > > Postgres-supplied typenames.
> >
> > Well, actually they do. glibc in <stdint.h> and NetBSD in
> > <sys/inttypes.h> which is a mess, all rigth. Problem is that
> > postgres.h does not know about this. I guess that C99 forgot to
> > specify _where_ they should be defined.
>
> Correction, they both have <inttypes.h> which probably is the right
> location for this.
<stdint.h> is adequate to pick up uint*_t. <inttypes.h> is defined to
include <stdint.h>. Of course all this C99 stuff is new and existing
implementations may have the typedefs in different files or not have
them at all.
--
Pete Forman -./\.- Disclaimer: This post is originated
WesternGeco -./\.- by myself and does not represent
pete(dot)forman(at)westerngeco(dot)com -./\.- opinion of Schlumberger, Baker
http://www.crosswinds.net/~petef -./\.- Hughes or their divisions.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Philip Warner | 2001-01-08 10:30:53 | Re: pg_dump return status.. |
Previous Message | Pete Forman | 2001-01-08 09:36:21 | Re: pg_dump return status.. |