sorry. It is a macro.so, would it be better to
check for the macroas suggested by Tom or go with this patch$ diff -r configure.in configure.in.new918a919>
AC_MSG_CHECKING([for getaddrinfo])920c921,926<
AC_REPLACE_FUNCS([getaddrinfo])---> AC_TRY_LINK([#include
#include
],>
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:33:13PM +0530, R, Rajesh (STSD) wrote:
> Its not a macro.
> I meant that the code generated by AC_REPLACE_FUNCS([getaddrinfo]) by
> configure.in for "configure"
> does not have "#include ". Hence function is not
> detected(unresolved getaddrinfo).
> Hence I thought AC_TR
Message-From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Tuesday,
January 17, 2006 8:34 PMTo: R, Rajesh (STSD)Cc:
pgsql-hackers@postgresql.orgSubject: Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] [PATCH] Better
way to check for getaddrinfo function."R, Rajesh (STSD)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
m Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:28 PM
> To: R, Rajesh (STSD)
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [PATCH] Better way to check for getaddrinfo
> function.
>
> "R, Rajesh (STSD)" <
Title: RE: [GENERAL] [PATCH] Better way to check for getaddrinfo function.
That was very much situation specific.
But the bottomline is the default test does not include in the test code.
So, pg uses getaddrinfo.c.And the getaddrinfo.c does not work for me.
Ipv6 client authenciation
"R, Rajesh (STSD)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just thought that the following patch might improve checking for
> getaddrinfo function (in configure.in)
Since AC_TRY_RUN tests cannot work in cross-compilation scenarios,
you need an *extremely* good reason to put one in. "I thought this
might im
Title: [PATCH] Better way to check for getaddrinfo function.
Just thought that the following patch might improve checking for getaddrinfo function (in configure.in)
I was forced to write 'coz getaddrinfo went unnoticed in Tru64 Unix.
(displaying attached patch)
$ diff -r configure.in
