Re: [HACKERS] PATCH for pgconnection.h - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] PATCH for pgconnection.h
Date
Msg-id 29252.931447823@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] PATCH for pgconnection.h  (Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> writes:
> On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think the proper solution is to add a configure-time test to see
>> whether a namespace declaration is needed.  We could use configure to
>> see whether we need ".h" on the end of C++ include file references, too.
>> (That's another thing that's going to be site-dependent for a while to
>> come.)

> Hmmm.  I'm running 2.7.2.1 here and in the case of <string> I have a
> file called: /usr/include/g++/string <-- note there's no .h on the end.
> Am I being dense here and missing something or does this differ from what
> other folks have?

Same as what I have, but I'm using gcc 2.7.2.2 so that's not real
surprising.  I was under the impression that naming conventions for
C++ library include files have changed at least once in the development
of the C++ standards --- but I may be mistaken.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO list
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [HACKERS] Re: Postgresql 6.5-1 rpms on RedHat 6.0]