NEXTSTEP porting problems - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tatsuo Ishii
Subject NEXTSTEP porting problems
Date
Msg-id 199902100202.LAA24274@srapc451.sra.co.jp
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: [HACKERS] NEXTSTEP porting problems  (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
A NEXTSTEP3.3 user reported some porting problems.

1. #if FALSE problem

For example in src/include/utils/int8.h:
#if FALSEextern int64 *int28 (int16 val);extern int16 int82(int64 * val);#endif

Unfortunately in NEXTSTEP FALSE has been already defined as:
#define    FALSE    ((boolean_t) 0)

What about using #if 0 or #if PG_FALSE or whatever instead of #if
FALSE?


2. Datum problem

NEXTSTEP has its own "Datum" type and of course it coflicts with
PostgreSQL's Datum. Possible solution might be put below into c.h:

#ifdef NeXT
#undef Datum
#define Datum           PG_Datum
#define DatumPtr        PG_DatumPtr
#endif


Comments?
--
Tatsuo Ishii


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Hannu Krosing
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Keywords
Next
From: Vadim Mikheev
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] TIME QUALIFICATION