Andrew Chernow wrote:
The problem with the current check is its only an AC_CHECK_FUNCS. We
need an AC_SEARCH_LIBS first so the proper -llibrary is appended to
LIBS, which is used by AC_CHECK_FUNCS.
AC_SEARCH_LIBS(gethostbyname_r, c nsl)
Just don't put c in there. You usually don't want an
AC_SEARCH_LIBS(gethostbyname_r, c nsl)
Just don't put c in there. You usually don't want an explicit -lc to
appear in your link commands.
Correct. Copied that from an internal project, which I should fix.
--
Andrew Chernow
eSilo, LLC
every bit counts
http://www.esilo.com/
--
Sent via
Andrew Chernow wrote:
Forgot to mention, there is an easy fix:
~]# LDFLAGS=-lnsl ./configure --enable-thread-safety
But I assume that only works if I use gethostbyname_r(), right?
No, works for gethostbyname as well. They are all in libnsl.
But we do check for that in
On 1/14/09, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
OK, patch attached and applied to CVS HEAD. The nsl (not 'nls') library
check was removed in Postgres 8.2 here:
As long as you are looking at this, can you take a peek at this patch?
Merlin Moncure wrote:
On 1/14/09, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
OK, patch attached and applied to CVS HEAD. The nsl (not 'nls') library
check was removed in Postgres 8.2 here:
As long as you are looking at this, can you take a peek at this patch?
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Also the
calling of the function with all null pointers seems dangerous,
Its only trying to compile it, AC_TRY_COMPILE, not execute it. I don't
think? the NULL pointers could ever raise havoc.
--
Andrew Chernow
eSilo, LLC
every bit counts
http://www.esilo.com/
--
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Merlin Moncure wrote:
On 1/14/09, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
OK, patch attached and applied to CVS HEAD. The nsl (not 'nls') library
check was removed in Postgres 8.2 here:
As long as you are looking at this, can you take a peek at this patch?
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Is there any objection to applying this to 8.4?
Yes. I don't think we should bother with a one-operating-system patch
for an OS version that was obsolete ten years ago. (Even if I am still
running it ;-).) If we do this, the next thing will be trying to
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Is there any objection to applying this to 8.4?
Yes. I don't think we should bother with a one-operating-system patch
for an OS version that was obsolete ten years ago. (Even if I am still
running it ;-).) If we do this, the next
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Is there any objection to applying this to 8.4?
Yes. I don't think we should bother with a one-operating-system patch
for an OS version that was obsolete ten years ago. (Even if I am still
2009/1/12 Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us:
I supposed Solaris 2.5.1 (release 1996) is just too old to add
threading, and this code has been unchanged for years.
---
Andrew Chernow wrote:
for anyone interested
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I supposed Solaris 2.5.1 (release 1996) is just too old to add
threading, and this code has been unchanged for years.
Yeah, its old. Unfortunately for us, we still have to support it.
To set the record straight, the issue is not threads. Threads work fine
on 2.5.1.
Andrew Chernow wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I supposed Solaris 2.5.1 (release 1996) is just too old to add
threading, and this code has been unchanged for years.
Yeah, its old. Unfortunately for us, we still have to support it.
To set the record straight, the issue is not threads. Threads
Andrew Chernow wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I supposed Solaris 2.5.1 (release 1996) is just too old to add
threading, and this code has been unchanged for years.
Yeah, its old. Unfortunately for us, we still have to support it.
To set the record straight, the issue is not threads.
Andrew Chernow wrote:
Andrew Chernow wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I supposed Solaris 2.5.1 (release 1996) is just too old to add
threading, and this code has been unchanged for years.
Yeah, its old. Unfortunately for us, we still have to support it.
To set the record straight,
Forgot to mention, there is an easy fix:
~]# LDFLAGS=-lnsl ./configure --enable-thread-safety
But I assume that only works if I use gethostbyname_r(), right?
No, works for gethostbyname as well. They are all in libnsl.
But we do check for that in thread_test.c.
The problem with
I supposed Solaris 2.5.1 (release 1996) is just too old to add
threading, and this code has been unchanged for years.
---
Andrew Chernow wrote:
for anyone interested
Solaris 2.5.1 with --enable-thread-safety
for anyone interested
Solaris 2.5.1 with --enable-thread-safety
configure:25848: gcc -o conftest -O2 -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wpointer-arith -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wendif-labels
-fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv -pthreads -pthreads -D_REENTRANT
-D_THREAD_SAFE
18 matches
Mail list logo
