Re: cleaning up plperl warnings - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: cleaning up plperl warnings
Date
Msg-id 200601092311.k09NB4816672@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to cleaning up plperl warnings  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Responses Re: cleaning up plperl warnings  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Now, in src/include/port/win32.h we have this:
> 
> /*
>  * Supplement to <sys/types.h>.
>  *
>  * Perl already has conflicting defines for uid_t and gid_t.
>  */
> #ifndef PLPERL_HAVE_UID_GID
> typedef int uid_t;
> typedef int gid_t;
> #else
> /* These are redefined by perl. */
> #define uid_t int
> #define gid_t int
> #endif
> 
> 
> But in my perl installation, at least, these are not redefined at all, 
> but typedef''d:
> 
> typedef long uid_t;
> typedef long gid_t;
> 
> Which causes a couple of pretty obscure warnings:
> 
> C:/Perl/lib/CORE/win32.h:219: warning: useless keyword or type name in empty declaration
> C:/Perl/lib/CORE/win32.h:219: warning: empty declaration
> C:/Perl/lib/CORE/win32.h:220: warning: useless keyword or type name in empty declaration
> C:/Perl/lib/CORE/win32.h:220: warning: empty declaration
> 
> 
> Why do we need these defines at all? We don't use either of these types anywhere in the plperl code.
> 
> Is the community perl different in what it does here from what the ActiveState perl?

No idea, but if you don't need them, remove them so they work on your
setup, and if it breaks other people's perl, we will hear about it
before we package 8.2 and make adjustments.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: lookup_rowtype_tupdesc considered harmful
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: plperl vs LC_COLLATE (was Re: Possible savepoint bug)