From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Brian P Millett <bpm(at)ec-group(dot)com>, postgres <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] PATCH for pgconnection.h |
Date: | 1999-07-08 15:30:23 |
Message-ID: | 29252.931447823@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think the proper solution is to add a configure-time test to see
>> whether a namespace declaration is needed. We could use configure to
>> see whether we need ".h" on the end of C++ include file references, too.
>> (That's another thing that's going to be site-dependent for a while to
>> come.)
> Hmmm. I'm running 2.7.2.1 here and in the case of <string> I have a
> file called: /usr/include/g++/string <-- note there's no .h on the end.
> Am I being dense here and missing something or does this differ from what
> other folks have?
Same as what I have, but I'm using gcc 2.7.2.2 so that's not real
surprising. I was under the impression that naming conventions for
C++ library include files have changed at least once in the development
of the C++ standards --- but I may be mistaken.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-07-08 15:38:16 | Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO list |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-07-08 15:28:58 | Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO list |