Launchpad has imported 9 comments from the remote bug at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518623.
If you reply to an imported comment from within Launchpad, your comment will be sent to the remote bug automatically. Read more about Launchpad's inter-bugtracker facilities at https://help.launchpad.net/InterBugTracking. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-08-21T10:59:18+00:00 Caolan wrote: Created attachment 358225 get the defines into the headers Description of problem: Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: #include <sqltypes.h> #include <stdio.h> int main(void) { fprintf(stderr, "size is %d\n", sizeof(SQLBIGINT)); return 0; } Actual results: size is 4 Expected results: I strongly suspect it should be 8 Additional info: This comes about because /usr/include/unixodbc_conf_platform.h has just #define ODBCINT64 which comes from odbc_config --header, it should be #define ODBCINT64 "something" A fix attached, which is basically derived from head unixODBC cvs. Quite possibly technically anything that built against our unixODBC headers is busted. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unixodbc/+bug/620428/comments/0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-08-21T13:52:24+00:00 Caolan wrote: yeah, should be 8 not 4. back in F-10 with unixODBC-2.2.12-9.fc10 we get 8 unix-ODBC-2.2.11 on debian gives 8 so it just looks like unixODBC-2.2.14 in F-11/rawhide that gives the incorrect 4 Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unixodbc/+bug/620428/comments/1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-08-21T19:05:30+00:00 Tom wrote: Hmm. Anything that mentioned ODBCINT64 directly would probably fail to compile, but it seems like gcc doesn't object to "typedef SQLBIGINT;" and treats it as implicitly int. So code referencing SQLBIGINT or SQLUBIGINT is at risk. I will fix this in HEAD ... I am not sure if it's bright to back-patch into F-11, but on the other hand it's unlikely that could make things worse. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unixodbc/+bug/620428/comments/2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-08-21T21:11:10+00:00 Fedora wrote: unixODBC-2.2.14-6.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/unixODBC-2.2.14-6.fc11 Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unixodbc/+bug/620428/comments/3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-08-21T21:13:34+00:00 Tom wrote: Fix pushed into rawhide, also in F-11 testing. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unixodbc/+bug/620428/comments/4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-08-25T04:30:15+00:00 Fedora wrote: unixODBC-2.2.14-6.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update unixODBC'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-8919 Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unixodbc/+bug/620428/comments/5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-10-21T23:06:57+00:00 Jesse wrote: This has been fixed for F12, dropping it from the blocker. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unixodbc/+bug/620428/comments/6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-11-16T11:35:31+00:00 Bug wrote: This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 12 development cycle. Changing version to '12'. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unixodbc/+bug/620428/comments/7 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2010-04-08T10:05:33+00:00 Caolan wrote: lets mark this as closed, as fixed since F-12 Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unixodbc/+bug/620428/comments/8 ** Changed in: unixodbc (Fedora) Status: Unknown => Fix Released ** Changed in: unixodbc (Fedora) Importance: Unknown => Medium -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/620428 Title: unixodbc-dev: 64bit typedefs don't work To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unixodbc/+bug/620428/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
