Am Dienstag, 19. Februar 2008 schrieb Tom Lane:
Previously, AC_FUNC_FSEEKO did this to test if fseeko was available:
return !fseeko;
Now it does this:
return fseeko (stdin, 0, 0) (fseeko) (stdin, 0, 0);
Unfortunately, that gives the compiler enough of a syntactic clue
to
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please try the attached patch.
Shortly.
What is currently the consequence of the problem? Does it fail to build,
fail
to run, or does it fail with large files?
The consequence of the problem is that pg_dump/pg_restore are compiled
without any
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Am Dienstag, 19. Februar 2008 schrieb Tom Lane:
Unfortunately, that gives the compiler enough of a syntactic clue
to guess that fseeko is probably an undeclared function, and therefore
*it will not error out*, only generate a warning, if it's not seen
There seems to have been a bit of a brain cramp upstream :-(.
Previously, AC_FUNC_FSEEKO did this to test if fseeko was available:
return !fseeko;
Now it does this:
return fseeko (stdin, 0, 0) (fseeko) (stdin, 0, 0);
Unfortunately, that gives the compiler enough of a syntactic
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am not sure this explains the BSD case. NetBSD/BSDi uses
fsetpos/fgetpos to implement fseeko/ftello.
What exactly do you mean by uses --- are fseeko and ftello declared
as macros that call the other two, or what?
I'd kinda have thought that the new
Tom Lane wrote:
There seems to have been a bit of a brain cramp upstream :-(.
Previously, AC_FUNC_FSEEKO did this to test if fseeko was available:
return !fseeko;
Now it does this:
return fseeko (stdin, 0, 0) (fseeko) (stdin, 0, 0);
Unfortunately, that gives the compiler
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am not sure this explains the BSD case. NetBSD/BSDi uses
fsetpos/fgetpos to implement fseeko/ftello.
What exactly do you mean by uses --- are fseeko and ftello declared
as macros that call the other two, or what?
There are
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Have you see these lines lower in configure.in?
if test $ac_cv_func_fseeko = yes; then
AC_SYS_LARGEFILE
fi
Is this broken too?
Yeah, I thought so at first, but looking closer I think it's not too
relevant to the problem. This is
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
There seems to have been a bit of a brain cramp upstream :-(.
Previously, AC_FUNC_FSEEKO did this to test if fseeko was available:
return !fseeko;
Now it does this:
return fseeko (stdin, 0, 0) (fseeko) (stdin, 0, 0);
Unfortunately, that
