Re: odbc/UnixWare 7.1.1: No Go.
От | Larry Rosenman |
---|---|
Тема | Re: odbc/UnixWare 7.1.1: No Go. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20010322.16080500@ler-freebie.iadfw.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: odbc/UnixWare 7.1.1: No Go. (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: odbc/UnixWare 7.1.1: No Go.
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Can't we do something with atexit or other PORTABLE end stuff? I'll look at it for 7.2. LER >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< On 3/22/01, 10:16:03 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote regarding Re: [HACKERS] odbc/UnixWare 7.1.1: No Go.: > Larry Rosenman writes: > > cc -G -Wl,-z,text -Wl,-h,libpsqlodbc.so.0 -Wl,-Bsymbolic info.o bind.o columninfo.o connection.o convert.o drvconn.o environ.o execute.o lobj.o misc.o options.o pgtypes.o psqlodbc.o qresult.o results.o socket.o parse.o statement.o gpps.o tuple.o tuplelist.o dlg_specific.o -lm -Wl,-R/usr/local/pgsql/lib -o libpsqlodbc.so.0.26 > > UX:ld: ERROR: psqlodbc.o: symbol: '_fini' multiply defined; also in file /usr/ccs/lib/crti.o > > gmake[3]: *** [libpsqlodbc.so.0.26] Error 1 > This is a known portability problem on Unixware (at least known to me) and > probably other non-GCC setups. > > Why do WE define _fini? > Because we need to 'fini' something, I suspect. > -- > Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://yi.org/peter-e/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: