Re: [PATCHES] c.h is the problem of msvc.

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Hiroshi Saito <z-saito(at)guitar(dot)ocn(dot)ne(dot)jp>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] c.h is the problem of msvc.
Date: 2006-07-29 17:30:42
Message-ID: 200607291730.k6THUg926991@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches


Patch applied. Thanks.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hiroshi Saito wrote:
> Ooops,
> I am uncertain at the reason for not knowing __BORLANDC__...
> It will be sure if __BORLANDC__ has the definition.
> Thanks.
>
> Regards,
> Hiroshi Saito
>
> From: "Tom Lane"
>
>
> > "Hiroshi Saito" <z-saito(at)guitar(dot)ocn(dot)ne(dot)jp> writes:
> >> --- src/include/c.h.orig Sat Jul 15 01:38:59 2006
> >> +++ src/include/c.h Sat Jul 15 01:40:04 2006
> >> @@ -60,7 +60,9 @@
> >> #if defined(_MSC_VER) || defined(__BORLANDC__)
> >> #define WIN32_ONLY_COMPILER
> >> #define errcode __vc_errcode
> >> +#if (_MSC_VER > 1400)
> >> #include <crtdefs.h>
> >> +#endif
> >> #undef errcode
> >> #endif
> >>
> >
> > This patch certainly looks like it will break the __BORLANDC__ build ...
> >
> > regards, tom lane

[ Attachment, skipping... ]

>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2006-07-29 17:33:58 Re: [PATCHES] c.h is the problem of msvc.
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2006-07-29 17:15:18 Re: [HACKERS] putting CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2006-07-29 17:33:58 Re: [PATCHES] c.h is the problem of msvc.
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2006-07-29 17:15:18 Re: [HACKERS] putting CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in