Jürgen Cappel wrote:
Point 1 I completely agree on: byte order, alignment, padding, etc.
is different for each platform and data cannot directly be exchanged.
Point 2: who really needs C++ ??
We use it, a multi path TCP router written in C++ and behind
there is a Postgresql...
Regards
Gaetano Mend
> > The compilers from Microsoft and Borland atleast aren't
> > compatible.
>
> But that shows up as link errors, not at runtime, right?
Correct. Microsoft and Borland use different library packaging formats,
COFF and OMF. However (non C++) DLLs are compatible and you can extract
a static lib f
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 12:22:18AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > But in the case of x86 (among others) that's the in-register
> > representation, no? IIRC they are stored to memory as 64-bit doubles at
> > best.
>
> You also have "long double"s on some compilers which could be 80 bit.
Actually
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 10:00:05PM +0200, Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 12:35:15PM -0700, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
> > I do know of important differences in compilers in this regard. You can
> > (for instance) have 80 bit floating point on one compiler using double
> > but it
> -Original Message-
> From: Jürgen Cappel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 12:33 PM
> To: Dann Corbit
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 7.5 beta version]
>
>
>
> Point 1 I completely agree on: byte order, alignment,
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeroen T. Vermeulen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 1:00 PM
> To: Dann Corbit
> Cc: Bruce Momjian; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 7.5 beta version
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 12:35:15
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 12:35:15PM -0700, Dann Corbit wrote:
> I do know of important differences in compilers in this regard. You can
> (for instance) have 80 bit floating point on one compiler using double
> but it is only 64 bits on another.
But in the case of x86 (among others) that's the
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 11:55:45AM -0700, Dann Corbit wrote:
> 1.
> The C language does not define alignment of structs.
Platform ABI standards do, though (hence the "as long as it adheres to..."
clause in my previous post). Whether it's in the C language or in the
platform's ABI standards is
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeroen T. Vermeulen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 12:25 PM
> To: Dann Corbit
> Cc: Bruce Momjian; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 7.5 beta version
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 11:55:45
Point 1 I completely agree on: byte order, alignment, padding, etc.
is different for each platform and data cannot directly be exchanged.
Point 2: who really needs C++ ??
Ursprüngliche Nachricht
Betreff: Re: [HACKERS] 7.5 beta version
Datum: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 11:55:45 -0700
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeroen T. Vermeulen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 7:28 AM
> To: Bruce Momjian
> Cc: Dann Corbit; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 7.5 beta version
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 09:38:13PM
"Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Apr 11, 2004 at 10:21:30PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> I was not sure if Win32 had standard alignment for C.
> Good point. There's standards, and then there's Windows. It's possible
> that separate "tight-packing" and "regular" pragm
On Sun, Apr 11, 2004 at 10:21:30PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I was not sure if Win32 had standard alignment for C.
Good point. There's standards, and then there's Windows. It's possible
that separate "tight-packing" and "regular" pragmas are used there, just
for structs that are expected t
Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 09:38:13PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > I don't think you can mix libs/binaries from different compilers.
>
> As long as it's plain old C, and the compilers adhere to the platform's
> ABI standards, why not? Even if you compile the C co
On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 09:38:13PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> I don't think you can mix libs/binaries from different compilers.
As long as it's plain old C, and the compilers adhere to the platform's
ABI standards, why not? Even if you compile the C code using a C++
compiler, as in this cas
library from the old
Visual compile, what happens if you change to the mingw one?
//Magnus
> -Original Message-
> From: Dann Corbit [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 2:43 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [HACKERS] 7.5 beta version
>
>
I am having some trouble interfacing the 7.5 server built with MINGW
with tools generated using other compilers.
I suspect that the issue is one of default structure packing. In the
old version we were using, we built PostgreSQL using Intel C++ or MS
VC++ and the same for the libpq and other inte
17 matches
Mail list logo
