From: | Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Billy G(dot) Allie" <bga(at)mug(dot)org>, "Arno A(dot) Karner" <karner(at)tnss(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: compiling pg 7.0.3 on sco 5.0.5 |
Date: | 2000-12-04 15:33:58 |
Message-ID: | 20001204093358.A9356@lerami.lerctr.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* 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
> #endif
>
> 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.
LER
>
> 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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Smith | 2000-12-04 15:36:35 | Re: compiling pg 7.0.3 on sco 5.0.5 |
Previous Message | Junfeng Zhang | 2000-12-04 15:31:14 | Re: Using Threads? |