Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] include compile problems
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Patch applied. Thanks. > > I suspect the point was that limits.h is needed *instead of* math.h, > not *in addition to*. How many of those headers had math.h before? The issue was that an include file included another include file that had math.h, but that include wasn't needed, so when it was removed, a C file including the first file didn't have math.h anymore. (I didn't actually check system include file usage because that is platform-specific). Anyway, thanks for the patch you made, and glad you looked at the system includes, which I did not. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] include compile problems
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Patch applied. Thanks. I suspect the point was that limits.h is needed *instead of* math.h, not *in addition to*. How many of those headers had math.h before? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] include compile problems
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Tom Lane wrote: I think that Bruce thought that defines INT_MAX and related symbols, whereas the spec is perfectly clear that they're in . However, that's where they are on my machines, and yet CVS tip is not failing for me. I'm not clear why not... What platform are you using? I tested on Solaris 9 with Sun compiler and Debian unstable with gcc-4.1.1. Debian only failed on contrib while Solaris failed on both core and contrib. Kris Jurka ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] include compile problems
Tom Lane wrote: > Kris Jurka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The attached patch makes the tree build for me again after the recent > > include changes. This patch still violates the postgres.h before all > > system headers rule and I'm still not sure what changed that broke > > everything, but if people need to get work done this may help. > > I think that Bruce thought that defines INT_MAX and related > symbols, whereas the spec is perfectly clear that they're in > . However, that's where they are on my machines, and yet CVS > tip is not failing for me. I'm not clear why not... What platform > are you using? What happened is that an include file had #include , but didn't need it, so when it was removed, it had to be added to a few C files. Not sure why limit.h is involved though, but the include trimming does sometimes have that affect because limit was used somewhere else. This is why the cleaning isn't done for every release. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] include compile problems
Kris Jurka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The attached patch makes the tree build for me again after the recent > include changes. This patch still violates the postgres.h before all > system headers rule and I'm still not sure what changed that broke > everything, but if people need to get work done this may help. I think that Bruce thought that defines INT_MAX and related symbols, whereas the spec is perfectly clear that they're in . However, that's where they are on my machines, and yet CVS tip is not failing for me. I'm not clear why not... What platform are you using? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster