I just tried a rebuild of the MSVC stuff, and got the following error.
Any ideas on the best way to fix that?
(as you notice, I haven't pulled the very latest cvs so I haven't for
the min() fix that's put in now. Just let me know if the rest is also
fixed ;-))
//Magnus
Build started: Project:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just tried a rebuild of the MSVC stuff, and got the following error.
Any ideas on the best way to fix that?
1.\src\port\qsort.c(53) : warning C4005: 'min' : macro redefinition
C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio
This is fixed already
MSVCRTD.lib(MSVCR80D.dll) : error LNK2005: _qsort already
defined in
qsort.obj
Hmm. I've been seeing related complaints on Darwin, but they
were just warnings (about our qsort conflicting with the one in libc).
Yeah, seems it works in Mingw, but for some reason it's fatal in MSVC.
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 01:56:24PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Is it worth renaming our qsort to pg_qsort to avoid this? (I'd be
inclined to do that via a macro #define qsort pg_qsort, not by running
around and changing all the code.)
Redefining a function that is defined in POSIX and present on
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it worth renaming our qsort to pg_qsort to avoid this?
(I'd be inclined to do that via a macro #define qsort
pg_qsort, not by running around and changing all the code.)
Yeah, I think it is ;-) Just make sure it happens before we pull in
Is it worth renaming our qsort to pg_qsort to avoid this?
(I'd be inclined to do that via a macro #define qsort
pg_qsort, not
by running around and changing all the code.)
Yeah, I think it is ;-) Just make sure it happens before we pull in
stdlib.h, so we don't rename tha tone as
On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 13:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Is it worth renaming our qsort to pg_qsort to avoid this? (I'd be
inclined to do that via a macro #define qsort pg_qsort, not by running
around and changing all the code.)
Why not change each call site? I don't think it would hurt to be clear
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 13:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Is it worth renaming our qsort to pg_qsort to avoid this? (I'd be
inclined to do that via a macro #define qsort pg_qsort, not by running
around and changing all the code.)
Why not change each call site?
