Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun dic 27 13:54:56 -0300 2010:
[ lightbulb ] ... although we could improve that quite a bit if we
processed each .h file separately instead of insisting on smashing
everything into one
I believe that Dave Page wants to move to building pg for windows
using visual C++ 2010 some time this year. That alone may be enough of
a reason to check for C++0x keywords in headers:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2010/04/06/c-0x-core-language-features-in-vc10-the-table.aspx
I think
On sön, 2010-12-26 at 12:31 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
We did clean up C++ keyword uses in the header files in 9.0, but your
report shows it's already gotten broken again. I'm disinclined to fix
it unless someone steps up to create an automated test that will get
run reasonably often. We had
Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of lun dic 27 12:54:16 -0300 2010:
On sön, 2010-12-26 at 12:31 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
We did clean up C++ keyword uses in the header files in 9.0, but your
report shows it's already gotten broken again. I'm disinclined to fix
it unless someone steps
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
src/tools/pginclude/cpluspluscheck
Ah, I'd forgotten that.
What's missing is to automate this, but it's unclear in what context,
and perhaps also to what extend this should be a hard requirement.
After a bit of experimentation, I can say that this is
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun dic 27 13:54:56 -0300 2010:
[ lightbulb ] ... although we could improve that quite a bit if we
processed each .h file separately instead of insisting on smashing
everything into one compilation. Let me go try that.
FWIW I have this patch lingering
On 12/27/2010 11:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
After a bit of experimentation, I can say that this is better than
Andrew's hack, but it's still a good distance shy of something that
should be automated or treated as a hard requirement.
I'm always happy if someone produces something better than I
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 12:33:00PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 12/27/2010 11:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
After a bit of experimentation, I can say that this is better than
Andrew's hack, but it's still a good distance shy of something that
should be automated or treated as a hard requirement.
On mån, 2010-12-27 at 12:33 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On a more general point, it would be useful to have some
infrastructure for running quality checks like this and publishing the
results. We should be way beyond the point where we rely on
individuals doing this sort of stuff.
I had a
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun dic 27 13:54:56 -0300 2010:
[ lightbulb ] ... although we could improve that quite a bit if we
processed each .h file separately instead of insisting on smashing
everything into one compilation. Let me
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 18:50, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun dic 27 13:54:56 -0300 2010:
[ lightbulb ] ... although we could improve that quite a bit if we
processed each .h file separately instead
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 18:50, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
src/tools/pginclude/ already contains several scripts for this sort of
thing. Bruce runs them by hand occasionally, although I just found out
that he's evidently not run the
BTW, the cpluspluscheck script invokes g++ with -fno-operator-names,
saying
# -fno-operator-names omits the definition of bitand and bitor, which
# collide with varbit.h. Could be fixed, if one were so inclined.
I just confirmed that those two function definitions are the only
I hope that we don't make the mistake of not checking for collisions
with C++0x keywords, for which GCC 4.3+ has partial support. The new
standard is almost complete, so it will probably become a lot more
relevant soon. There are quite a few new keywords in C++0x, including:
constexpr
decltype
Peter Geoghegan peter.geoghega...@gmail.com writes:
I hope that we don't make the mistake of not checking for collisions
with C++0x keywords, for which GCC 4.3+ has partial support. The new
standard is almost complete, so it will probably become a lot more
relevant soon. There are quite a few
On 27 December 2010 19:17, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
[ shrug... ] If it's not a keyword according to popularly available
tools, then I really have zero interest in worrying about it. This
is an exercise in making the headers useful in practice, not in academic
standards conformance.
Excerpts from Peter Geoghegan's message of lun dic 27 16:13:33 -0300 2010:
I hope that we don't make the mistake of not checking for collisions
with C++0x keywords, for which GCC 4.3+ has partial support. The new
standard is almost complete, so it will probably become a lot more
relevant soon.
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Excerpts from Peter Geoghegan's message of lun dic 27 16:13:33 -0300 2010:
constexpr
decltype
nullptr
static_assert
I think only constexpr is being currently used from this list, and it's
easily fixed because it's not exposed beyond a
Craig Ringer cr...@postnewspapers.com.au writes:
On 12/26/2010 02:14 PM, Elliot Chance wrote:
/usr/include/pgsql/server/nodes/primnodes.h:1155: error: expected
unqualified-id before using
You've neglected to mention which version of Pg you're compiling
against, so that line number means
On 12/26/2010 12:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
In any case, I think it's very likely the issue is a C/C++
incompatibility in the Pg headers. It fails for me in a different place
using Pg 9.1git and g++ 4.5, complaining about the use of private as
an identifier in fmgr.h, because it's a keyword in
20 matches
Mail list logo
