Re: Compilation issue on Solaris.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 9:24 AM John Naylor wrote: > On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 9:27 PM Tom Lane wrote: > > > > Thomas Munro writes: > > > Something bothers me about adding yet more clutter to every compile > > > line for the rest of time to solve a problem that exists only for > > > unpatched systems, and also that it's not even really a Solaris thing, > > > it's a C11 thing. > > > > I tend to agree with this standpoint: if it's only a warning, and > > it only appears in a small range of not-up-to-date Solaris builds, > > then a reasonable approach is "update your system if you don't want > > to see the warning". > > > > A positive argument for doing nothing is that there's room to worry > > whether -D__STDC_WANT_LIB_EXT1__ might have any side-effects we > > *don't* want. > > This is still listed in the CF as needing review, so I went and marked > it rejected. > > +1, Thanks > -- > John Naylor > EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > -- Ibrar Ahmed
Re: Compilation issue on Solaris.
On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 9:27 PM Tom Lane wrote: > > Thomas Munro writes: > > Something bothers me about adding yet more clutter to every compile > > line for the rest of time to solve a problem that exists only for > > unpatched systems, and also that it's not even really a Solaris thing, > > it's a C11 thing. > > I tend to agree with this standpoint: if it's only a warning, and > it only appears in a small range of not-up-to-date Solaris builds, > then a reasonable approach is "update your system if you don't want > to see the warning". > > A positive argument for doing nothing is that there's room to worry > whether -D__STDC_WANT_LIB_EXT1__ might have any side-effects we > *don't* want. This is still listed in the CF as needing review, so I went and marked it rejected. -- John Naylor EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Re: Compilation issue on Solaris.
Thomas Munro writes: > Something bothers me about adding yet more clutter to every compile > line for the rest of time to solve a problem that exists only for > unpatched systems, and also that it's not even really a Solaris thing, > it's a C11 thing. I tend to agree with this standpoint: if it's only a warning, and it only appears in a small range of not-up-to-date Solaris builds, then a reasonable approach is "update your system if you don't want to see the warning". A positive argument for doing nothing is that there's room to worry whether -D__STDC_WANT_LIB_EXT1__ might have any side-effects we *don't* want. regards, tom lane
Re: Compilation issue on Solaris.
On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 5:47 AM Ibrar Ahmed wrote: > I am using "SunOS solaris-vagrant 5.11 11.4.0.15.0 i86pc i386 i86pc", Hah. So your vagrant image must be from a fairly narrow range of time when Solaris 11.4 came out with memset_s but didn't yet have explicit_bzero. That arrived in SRU12 in 2019, which came out before we started using the function. Real Solaris systems would have absorbed that via "pkg update", explaining why no one ever noticed this problem. > I gave > another thought and Tom is right src/template/solaris is a better place to > add that. Something bothers me about adding yet more clutter to every compile line for the rest of time to solve a problem that exists only for unpatched systems, and also that it's not even really a Solaris thing, it's a C11 thing. But I'm not going to object. At least it's recorded in the archives that it's an obvious candidate to be removed again in a few years... I was mostly interested in understanding WHY we suddenly need this...
Re: Compilation issue on Solaris.
On Sat, Jul 9, 2022 at 10:28 AM Thomas Munro wrote: > On Sat, Jul 9, 2022 at 2:02 PM Ibrar Ahmed wrote: > > Thanks for looking at that, yes you are right, the attached patch do > that now > > > > if test "$PORTNAME" = "solaris"; then > > > >CPPFLAGS="$CPPFLAGS -D_POSIX_PTHREAD_SEMANTICS" > > > > + CPPFLAGS="$CPPFLAGS -D__STDC_WANT_LIB_EXT1__" > > > > fi > > Hmm. K.3.3.1 of [1] says you can show or hide all that _s stuff by > defining that macro to 0 or 1 before you include , but it's > implementation-defined whether they are exposed by default, and the > template file is one way to deal with that > implementation-definedness... it's not quite in the autoconf spirit > though, it's kinda manual. Another approach would be to define it > unconditionally at the top of explicit_bzero.c before including "c.h", > on all platforms. The man page on my system tells me I should do that > anyway, even though you don't need to on my system. > > Why is your Solaris system trying to compile that file in the first > place? A quick check of the Solaris and Illumos build farm animals > and some online man pages tells me they have explicit_bzero(). > Ahhh... looks like it came a few years ago in some Solaris 11.4 > update[2], and Illumos (which forked around 10) probably added it > independently (why do Solaris man pages not have a history section to > tell us these things?!). I guess you must be running an old version. > OK then. > > [1] https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1548.pdf > [2] https://blogs.oracle.com/solaris/post/expanding-the-library > I am using "SunOS solaris-vagrant 5.11 11.4.0.15.0 i86pc i386 i86pc", I gave another thought and Tom is right src/template/solaris is a better place to add that. -- Ibrar Ahmed
Re: Compilation issue on Solaris.
On Sat, Jul 9, 2022 at 2:02 PM Ibrar Ahmed wrote: > Thanks for looking at that, yes you are right, the attached patch do that now > > if test "$PORTNAME" = "solaris"; then > >CPPFLAGS="$CPPFLAGS -D_POSIX_PTHREAD_SEMANTICS" > > + CPPFLAGS="$CPPFLAGS -D__STDC_WANT_LIB_EXT1__" > > fi Hmm. K.3.3.1 of [1] says you can show or hide all that _s stuff by defining that macro to 0 or 1 before you include , but it's implementation-defined whether they are exposed by default, and the template file is one way to deal with that implementation-definedness... it's not quite in the autoconf spirit though, it's kinda manual. Another approach would be to define it unconditionally at the top of explicit_bzero.c before including "c.h", on all platforms. The man page on my system tells me I should do that anyway, even though you don't need to on my system. Why is your Solaris system trying to compile that file in the first place? A quick check of the Solaris and Illumos build farm animals and some online man pages tells me they have explicit_bzero(). Ahhh... looks like it came a few years ago in some Solaris 11.4 update[2], and Illumos (which forked around 10) probably added it independently (why do Solaris man pages not have a history section to tell us these things?!). I guess you must be running an old version. OK then. [1] https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1548.pdf [2] https://blogs.oracle.com/solaris/post/expanding-the-library
Re: Compilation issue on Solaris.
On Sat, Jul 9, 2022 at 6:46 AM Tom Lane wrote: > Ibrar Ahmed writes: > > While compiling the PostgreSQL I have found that *memset_s function > > requires a define "*__STDC_WANT_LIB_EXT1__*" * > > *explicit_bzero.c:* In function ‘*explicit_bzero*’: > > *explicit_bzero.c:23:9:* *warning: *implicit declaration of function ‘ > > *memset_s*’; did you mean ‘*memset*’? [*-Wimplicit-function-declaration*] > > Hmm. > > > Attached is the patch to define that in the case of Solaris. > > If you don't have any test you want to make before adding the > #define, I don't think this is idiomatic use of autoconf. > Personally I'd have just added "-D__STDC_WANT_LIB_EXT1__" into > the CPPFLAGS for Solaris, perhaps in src/template/solaris, > or maybe just adjust the stanza immediately above this one: > > if test "$PORTNAME" = "solaris"; then > CPPFLAGS="$CPPFLAGS -D_POSIX_PTHREAD_SEMANTICS" > fi > > regards, tom lane > Thanks for looking at that, yes you are right, the attached patch do that now if test "$PORTNAME" = "solaris"; then CPPFLAGS="$CPPFLAGS -D_POSIX_PTHREAD_SEMANTICS" + CPPFLAGS="$CPPFLAGS -D__STDC_WANT_LIB_EXT1__" fi -- Ibrar Ahmed solaris_memset_s_v2.patch Description: Binary data
Re: Compilation issue on Solaris.
Ibrar Ahmed writes: > While compiling the PostgreSQL I have found that *memset_s function > requires a define "*__STDC_WANT_LIB_EXT1__*" * > *explicit_bzero.c:* In function ‘*explicit_bzero*’: > *explicit_bzero.c:23:9:* *warning: *implicit declaration of function ‘ > *memset_s*’; did you mean ‘*memset*’? [*-Wimplicit-function-declaration*] Hmm. > Attached is the patch to define that in the case of Solaris. If you don't have any test you want to make before adding the #define, I don't think this is idiomatic use of autoconf. Personally I'd have just added "-D__STDC_WANT_LIB_EXT1__" into the CPPFLAGS for Solaris, perhaps in src/template/solaris, or maybe just adjust the stanza immediately above this one: if test "$PORTNAME" = "solaris"; then CPPFLAGS="$CPPFLAGS -D_POSIX_PTHREAD_SEMANTICS" fi regards, tom lane
Compilation issue on Solaris.
Hi, While compiling the PostgreSQL I have found that *memset_s function requires a define "*__STDC_WANT_LIB_EXT1__*" * *explicit_bzero.c:* In function ‘*explicit_bzero*’: *explicit_bzero.c:23:9:* *warning: *implicit declaration of function ‘ *memset_s*’; did you mean ‘*memset*’? [*-Wimplicit-function-declaration*] (void) *memset_s*(buf, len, 0, len); *^~~~* Attached is the patch to define that in the case of Solaris. -- Ibrar Ahmed solaris_memset_s_v1.patch Description: Binary data
