| From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: qsort vs MSVC build |
| Date: | 2006-10-19 18:01:14 |
| Message-ID: | 20061019180114.GA13348@svana.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 01:56:24PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Is it worth renaming our qsort to pg_qsort to avoid this? (I'd be
> inclined to do that via a macro "#define qsort pg_qsort", not by running
> around and changing all the code.)
Redefining a function that is defined in POSIX and present on most
systems seems like a bad idea. Not in the least because ELF linking
rules mean that if any library (say libssl) in the backend calls qsort,
they'll get the postgresql one, rather than the C library like they
expect. That seems fragile to me.
The #define would be fine, as long as you make sure it's called after
the system headers, otherwise the problem isn't fixed.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2006-10-19 18:02:10 | Re: CVS repository rsync |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2006-10-19 17:58:37 | Re: qsort vs MSVC build |