From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Horacio Samaniego" <Horacio(at)unm(dot)edu> |
Cc: | <pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: OSX ? |
Date: | 2005-11-15 08:30:45 |
Message-ID: | E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4E7DFF3@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-odbc |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-odbc-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-odbc-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
> Sent: 15 November 2005 03:03
> To: Horacio Samaniego
> Cc: pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [ODBC] OSX ?
>
> Darwin's /usr/include/sqltypes.h has
>
> /*
> * API declaration data types
> */
> typedef signed int SQLINTEGER;
> typedef unsigned int SQLUINTEGER;
>
> /*
> * SQL portable types for C
> */
> typedef long int SDWORD;
> typedef unsigned long int UDWORD;
>
> and gcc is entirely within its rights to complain that "int"
> != "long int".
>
> *Somebody* is not on the right page here. I would tend to fault
> psqlodbc for inconsistent declarations, but if it works on other
> platforms (as it seems to) maybe there is a general convention
> that SQLINTEGER == SDWORD etc? If so, Apple didn't get the word.
On Windows in SQLTypes we have:
typedef long SQLINTEGER;
typedef unsigned long SQLUINTEGER;
And
typedef long int SDWORD;
typedef unsigned long int UDWORD;
In this case I'd tend to go with Microsoft's definitions given that it's
their spec.
I do intend to work on porting psqlODBC to OSX in the not-to-distant
future, however it's not going to be right away I'm afraid, and for the
moment it will only be on Panther (which doesn't support Unicode ODBC).
Regards, Dave.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Claus Scherschel | 2005-11-15 08:47:34 | Re: Invisible tables in Access 2000 |
Previous Message | Anoop Kumar | 2005-11-15 04:25:26 | Re: Recommended ODBC version for compilation |