Re: Severe regression in autoconf 2.61

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Severe regression in autoconf 2.61
Date: 2008-02-19 02:34:26
Message-ID: 18890.1203388466@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Have you see these lines lower in configure.in?

> if test $ac_cv_func_fseeko = yes; then
> AC_SYS_LARGEFILE
> fi

> Is this broken too?

Yeah, I thought so at first, but looking closer I think it's not too
relevant to the problem. This is for testing whether a couple of *other*
macros need to be defined, it's not about _LARGEFILE_SOURCE.

> It just seemed more straight-forward when the defined HAVE_FSEEKO based
> on ac_cv_func_fseeko rather than ac_cv_sys_largefile_source.

Well, I think 2.61's treatment of fseeko is simply broken. I'm tempted
to propose fixing this by defining PGAC_FUNC_SEEKO the same way 2.59
defined AC_FUNC_SEEKO, and then we wouldn't need the changes you've been
making.

But someone ought to kick this upstream and ask what they were thinking.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-02-19 02:52:17 Re: Ad Hoc Indexes
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2008-02-19 02:28:08 Re: Severe regression in autoconf 2.61