Re: Templates

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Templates
Date: 2000-07-11 20:34:21
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.21.0007112230220.350-100000@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane writes:

> > So the compiler information must disappear from the template files.
>
> Not exactly. We do need to be able to decide whether we are using
> gcc or vendor cc in order to pick the right switches.

I'll rephrase that: The name of the compiler needs to disappear from the
template file. We'd still have a separate file for GCC vs vendor with the
different CFLAGS, etc., but we wouldn't force CC= something.

> One possible way of doing that is to merge the "cc" and "gcc"
> templates and have if-tests in the templates instead. For example the
> hpux template might look like

Or that, but I'm not sure if that enhances readibility.

> That last line brings up an issue that you'll have to deal with before
> you can convince me that vanilla autoconf is the only solution we need:
> how do you force the thing to use compatible C++ and C compilers?

We use the libtool multi-language branch. :-) Btw., libtool will need
config.guess either way. Not this release though...

--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2000-07-11 20:38:33 Re: pg_backup symlink?
Previous Message Jan Wieck 2000-07-11 19:42:26 Re: Foreign key bugs (Re: [BUGS] "New" bug?? Serious - crashesbackend.)