Re: [HACKERS] NEXTSTEP porting problems

From: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] NEXTSTEP porting problems
Date: 1999-03-16 01:29:01
Message-ID: 199903160129.KAA08433@srapc451.sra.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>> A NEXTSTEP3.3 user reported some porting problems.
>>
>> 1. #if FALSE problem
>>
>> For example in src/include/utils/int8.h:
>>
>> #if FALSE
>> extern int64 *int28 (int16 val);
>> extern int16 int82(int64 * val);
>>
>> #endif
>>
>> Unfortunately in NEXTSTEP FALSE has been already defined as:
>>
>> #define FALSE ((boolean_t) 0)
>>
>> What about using #if 0 or #if PG_FALSE or whatever instead of #if
>> FALSE?
>>
>
>Done, by you, I think.

Yes. Marc has applied my patch.

>> 2. Datum problem
>>
>> NEXTSTEP has its own "Datum" type and of course it coflicts with
>> PostgreSQL's Datum. Possible solution might be put below into c.h:
>>
>> #ifdef NeXT
>> #undef Datum
>> #define Datum PG_Datum
>> #define DatumPtr PG_DatumPtr
>> #endif
>>
>>
>> Comments?
>
>Is Datum a #define on NextStep. Can we just #undef it?

I will ask the NextStep user.
--
Tatsuo Ishii

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 1999-03-16 01:35:04 Re: [HACKERS] inet data type regression test fails
Previous Message Tim Perdue 1999-03-16 01:25:58 Re: [HACKERS] "CANNOT EXTEND" -