On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 20:55, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 20:41, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: >>> The win64 port has showed that we have two sockets declared >>> incorrectly. They are supposed to be declared as SOCKET on win32, but >>> they are declared as int. See attached patch. >> >>> Given that SOCKET is actually defined as int on win32 (no warnings or >>> anything there, just on win64), I'm inclined to apply this patch just >>> to HEAD and not bother with backpatching. >> >> This looks pretty bletcherous --- plastering #ifdef WIN32 all over the >> code is exactly not the way to be fixing this sort of thing. Maybe we >> should go the other direction of "typedef int SOCKET" on Unix then use >> SOCKET everywhere. > > Yeah, we can do that - I figured since it was only two places, this > was easier... > > In keeping with how we usually name things though, shouldn't it be > pg_socket, and then have it typdef'ed to two different things > depending on which platform you're on?
Something along the line of this? Is there a good trick to find out if you've touched every place you need to, because I'm very unsure I have. I don't even get a warning in more than those two places, but there ought to be some way to trick the system to tell me? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
socket.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
