On 12/13/2010 12:54 AM, Glen Knowles wrote:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us
mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
What are the values of _S_IREAD and _S_IWRITE, anyway? I'm still
wondering how come the previous coding with hardwired constants
behaved
I wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 18:46, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I think we can just #define the other cases as zeroes. I'm not sure why
you think that's an issue for open --- the privileges don't exist.
Hmm. I was/am worried about any
On 12/12/2010 11:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I put in #define's for these, and it seems to have fixed the MSVC
buildfarm members, but cygwin is still broken. How come ... doesn't
that port use port/win32.h?
ITYM Mingw. And yes, it does use port/win32.h; narwhal's log says:
config.status:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 12/12/2010 11:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I put in #define's for these, and it seems to have fixed the MSVC
buildfarm members, but cygwin is still broken. How come ... doesn't
that port use port/win32.h?
ITYM Mingw. And yes, it does use port/win32.h;
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
What are the values of _S_IREAD and _S_IWRITE, anyway? I'm still
wondering how come the previous coding with hardwired constants
behaved correctly.
Still curious about this.
FWIW, _S_IREAD and _S_IWRITE are defined by
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
This broke the buildfarm on Windows, and I'm not sure of the best way to fix
it.
We currently define read and write permissions in port/win32.h
specifically for windows. A quick-fix to just add these new ones as
aliases won't work, because they are
I wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
This broke the buildfarm on Windows, and I'm not sure of the best way to fix
it.
Hm, those symbols are already in use elsewhere in the code; I would
assume it's just a matter of missing #includes in these particular
files. Where does
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 17:13, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
This broke the buildfarm on Windows, and I'm not sure of the best way to
fix it.
Hm, those symbols are already in use elsewhere in the code; I would
assume it's just a
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 17:13, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Ah, I have a theory: fcntl.h.
Nope, not there. I can't find S_IWGRP in any of the files.
Well, I notice that copydir.c compiled before, and still compiles after,
despite this change:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 17:23, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 17:13, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Ah, I have a theory: fcntl.h.
Nope, not there. I can't find S_IWGRP in any of the files.
Well, I notice that
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 17:23, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I think the reason it's not failing is that it includes fcntl.h.
S_IRWXU is defined in port/win32.h...
No, it isn't. There's an apparently-useless definition of _S_IRWXU
there, but
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 17:38, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 17:23, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I think the reason it's not failing is that it includes fcntl.h.
S_IRWXU is defined in port/win32.h...
No, it
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 17:38, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
No, it isn't. There's an apparently-useless definition of _S_IRWXU
there, but no S_IRWXU.
Hmm. You're right, of course.
A search on my windows box finds the text string S_IRWXU in
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 17:55, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 17:38, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
No, it isn't. There's an apparently-useless definition of _S_IRWXU
there, but no S_IRWXU.
Hmm. You're right, of
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 17:55, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
2. Why didn't the previously hard-wired constants passed to chmod
and umask fail on Windows? The M$ documentation I can find at the
moment suggests that *only* _S_IREAD and _S_IWRITE
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 17:55, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
1. How did all those pre-existing references to S_IRXWU compile?
Yeah, that's weird. IIRC (I stopped looking for the moment, need a
step back) some of them were protected by #ifndef
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 18:46, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 17:55, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
1. How did all those pre-existing references to S_IRXWU compile?
Yeah, that's weird. IIRC (I stopped looking for the
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 18:46, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I think we can just #define the other cases as zeroes. I'm not sure why
you think that's an issue for open --- the privileges don't exist.
Hmm. I was/am worried about any case that
18 matches
Mail list logo
