From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Belbin, Peter" <PBelbin(at)McLeodUSA(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: solaris 10 with gcc 3.3.2 |
Date: | 2004-12-18 06:00:05 |
Message-ID: | 28304.1103349605@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
I wrote:
> This is standard practice for gcc: it tries to use "cleaned up" versions
> of system headers that will not elicit useless warnings from gcc. It's
> a good idea, actually, because the degree of insanity in vendor-supplied
> system headers is pretty depressing. But if the gcc install process
> generated an invalid "cleanup" file then you need to take that up with
> the gcc boys, not us.
On rereading this, a nearly-dead neuron fired --- I have seen problems
of this sort arise when someone took a gcc installation generated on
NiftyVendorUnix M.N and copied it verbatim to NiftyVendorUnix M.N+1,
or indeed any release other than M.N. Then you have a situation where
gcc is inserting cleaned-up versions of some system headers but not
others (because it doesn't force the issue when it doesn't have to),
and if the vendor did something like move a typedef from one header
to another, you lose, because the cleaned-up headers are not in sync
with the others.
In short ... where'd you get your gcc installation from?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kris Jurka | 2004-12-18 07:10:41 | Re: Jdbc3SimpleDataSource does not require the setting of |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-12-18 05:40:15 | Re: syntax error causes crafted data to be executed in shell |