Re: Severe regression in autoconf 2.61
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Severe regression in autoconf 2.61 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 18056.1203384980@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Severe regression in autoconf 2.61 (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Severe regression in autoconf 2.61
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > I am not sure this explains the BSD case. NetBSD/BSDi uses > fsetpos/fgetpos to implement fseeko/ftello. What exactly do you mean by "uses" --- are fseeko and ftello declared as macros that call the other two, or what? I'd kinda have thought that the new coding of AC_FUNC_FSEEKO would work well with macros. What it *doesn't* work well, or at all, with is #ifdef _LARGEFILE_SOURCEextern int fseeko(...#endif which is exactly what the test was originally supposed to find out about :-( > I don't really understand why ac_cv_sys_largefile_source is now being > tested. I think the idea is that by this point, ac_cv_sys_largefile_source is set to 1 if you need _LARGEFILE_SOURCE to see a definition of fseeko (as above), or to "no" if you see a definition of fseeko without _LARGEFILE_SOURCE, or to "unknown" if you don't get fseeko either way. So that test makes sense in context. The problem is that someone subsequently broke the method for testing whether fseeko is declared. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: