Re: [HACKERS] !USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER compile errors in v10+ - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] !USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER compile errors in v10+
Date
Msg-id 2653.1506029893@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] !USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER compile errors in v10+  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] !USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER compile errors in v10+
Re: [HACKERS] !USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER compile errors in v10+
List pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes:
>> Perhaps it is time to require HAVE_WCSTOMBS and HAVE_TOWLOWER, removing
>> USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER?  Every buildfarm fossil has both.

> +1 ... if nothing else, there's the problem that untested code is likely
> to be broken.  You just proved it *is* broken, of course, but my point
> is that even if we repaired the immediate damage we could have little
> confidence in it staying fixed.

Further notes about that:

* The Single Unix Spec v2 (a/k/a POSIX 1997), which has been our minimum
portability spec for quite awhile, requires wcstombs() and towlower(),
and further requires the latter to be declared in <wctype.h>.

* Surveying the buildfarm, I agree with your conclusion that every active
member has wcstombs() and towlower().  gaur/pademelon is the lone member
that lacks <wctype.h>; it declares towlower() in <wchar.h> instead.  It's
not so surprising that that system adheres to a pre-1997 idea of where to
put that, because its /usr/include files mostly date from 1996 ...

Meanwhile, I see that Peter has posted a fix for the immediate problem.
I propose that Peter should apply his fix in HEAD and v10, and then
I'll rip out the !USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER code paths in HEAD only.
        regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] visual studio 2017 build support
Next
From: "Jim Van Fleet"
Date:
Subject: Re: Fw: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PATCH] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts --follow-up