On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 04:22:53PM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
If you meant like this below, then ECPG segfaults on this too:
Right, because arrays as as well unimplemented as are structs. I meant
something like this;
int *
get_var(void)
{
EXEC SQL BEGIN DECLARE SECTION;
Michael Meskes írta:
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 04:22:53PM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
If you meant like this below, then ECPG segfaults on this too:
Right, because arrays as as well unimplemented as are structs. I meant
something like this;
int *
get_var(void)
{
EXEC
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 11:48:33AM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
Which isn't exactly a good programming habit.
I couldn't agree more.
In the above code local, in-scope variables are also replaced
with ECPG_informix_set_var() and _get_var() calls.
Totally unnecessary, or totally necessary
Michael Meskes írta:
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 11:48:33AM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
Which isn't exactly a good programming habit.
I couldn't agree more.
:-)
In the above code local, in-scope variables are also replaced
with ECPG_informix_set_var() and _get_var() calls.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:42:33AM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
made me look around more. Find the attached patch I came up with.
Now my previous test code works and produces similar C code
as without -C INFORMIX. Can it be this simple?
Unfortunately it is not.
Can you see anything wrong
Michael Meskes írta:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:42:33AM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
made me look around more. Find the attached patch I came up with.
Now my previous test code works and produces similar C code
as without -C INFORMIX. Can it be this simple?
Unfortunately it is
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 11:08:26AM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
I have looked at it. The code seems to be invalid.
Yes, it is, I was too lazy to make it valid. If you just allocate the memory
for the variable in get_var() it becomes valid.
I tried to compile your code (with my previous fix
Michael Meskes írta:
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 11:08:26AM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
I have looked at it. The code seems to be invalid.
Yes, it is, I was too lazy to make it valid. If you just allocate the memory
for the variable in get_var() it becomes valid.
With
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 11:52:57AM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
This means that what I did in my first patch for this
problem in add_struct_to_head() (unrolling members
of the struct) has to be done in adjust_informix(),
turning it into a recursive function.
I think this would be a good
Michael Meskes írta:
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 11:52:57AM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
This means that what I did in my first patch for this
problem in add_struct_to_head() (unrolling members
of the struct) has to be done in adjust_informix(),
turning it into a recursive function.
I
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 03:04:00PM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
My question is: why not unroll the struct in the preprocessor?
The problem is not that the struct is unrolled in the preprocessor. I just
don't like the idea of having two places where structs are unrolled when one
could be
Michael Meskes írta:
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 11:08:26AM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
I have looked at it. The code seems to be invalid.
Yes, it is, I was too lazy to make it valid. If you just allocate the memory
for the variable in get_var() it becomes valid.
If you meant
Michael Meskes írta:
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 03:04:00PM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
My question is: why not unroll the struct in the preprocessor?
The problem is not that the struct is unrolled in the preprocessor. I just
don't like the idea of having two places where structs
Boszormenyi Zoltan írta:
Michael Meskes írta:
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 11:08:26AM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
I have looked at it. The code seems to be invalid.
Yes, it is, I was too lazy to make it valid. If you just allocate the memory
for the variable in
Michael Meskes írta:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 03:58:21PM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
Attached is the short example I can reproduce with.
The version I used was final PostgreSQL 8.4.0, without our
extensions posted already. I added an indication to ecpg_type_name():
[z...@db00
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 03:58:21PM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
Attached is the short example I can reproduce with.
The version I used was final PostgreSQL 8.4.0, without our
extensions posted already. I added an indication to ecpg_type_name():
[z...@db00 ecpg-test]$ ecpg -C INFORMIX
Hi,
one of our clients wants to port their application suite
from Informix to PostgreSQL, they use constructs like
SELECT * INTO :tablerec FROM table ...
where tablerec mirrors the table fields in a C struct.
Currently ECPG dumps core on this, more exactly aborts on it
in ecpg_type_name().
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:27:49PM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
one of our clients wants to port their application suite
from Informix to PostgreSQL, they use constructs like
SELECT * INTO :tablerec FROM table ...
where tablerec mirrors the table fields in a C struct.
Well, this was
Michael Meskes írta:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:27:49PM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
one of our clients wants to port their application suite
from Informix to PostgreSQL, they use constructs like
SELECT * INTO :tablerec FROM table ...
where tablerec mirrors the table fields in a C
19 matches
Mail list logo
