Re: ecpg generated files ignorable? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Meskes
Subject Re: ecpg generated files ignorable?
Date
Msg-id 20080620103701.GB3242@feivel.credativ.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ecpg generated files ignorable?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: ecpg generated files ignorable?  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 09:26:24PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > ? src/interfaces/ecpg/compatlib/libecpg_compatddll.def
> > ? src/interfaces/ecpg/ecpglib/libecpgddll.def
> > ? src/interfaces/ecpg/pgtypeslib/libpgtypesddll.def

IIRC these are for MS VC++.

> > I am not sure if these should stay on the source dir (i.e. are they
> > needed in the tarball).  If they are supposed to, then I think they
> > should be listed in the corresponding .cvsignore file.
> 
> Makefile.shlib builds these in the distprep action, so I suppose
> they're supposed to be there.  libpq .cvsignore's its equivalent
> files, so I'd agree with doing that.  It looks like there should be
> three such files in each directory, though, not just one?

Well, in my source tree I have two, one for MS VC++ and one for Borland
C++ Builder. And yes, I can build a third one for MS VC++ as well by
just issuing the corresponding make call. However, I have no idea
whether we need both, the only differ in the lib name:
--- libecpgddll.def     2008-06-20 12:33:29.000000000 +0200
+++ libecpgdll.def      2008-06-20 12:33:16.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@; DEF file for MS VC++
-LIBRARY LIBECPGD
+LIBRARY LIBECPGEXPORTS      ECPGallocate_desc                @ 1      ECPGconnect                      @ 2

Maybe someone with more Windows knowledge can explain this? Magnus?

Michael

-- 
Michael Meskes
Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: meskes@jabber.org
Go VfL Borussia! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Gaetano Mendola
Date:
Subject: Not valid dump [8.2.9, 8.3.1]
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Not valid dump [8.2.9, 8.3.1]