
> QNX6 will fail in 7.2.X.  We have patches for 7.3.  I believe AIX is
> fine thanks to work done a few weeks ago by Tatuso and others.
However,
> I am not totally sure.

7.2b3 passes "make check" on AIX 4.3 with both xlc and gcc.
1 Rounding difference (last digit) and 3 0 vs -0 in the geometry tests 
when using gcc (both gcc and xlc show -0s, only different ones).

The PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1 macro produces an annoying warning, that I
cannot 
interpret:

xlc -O2 -qmaxmem=16384 -qsrcmsg -qlonglong  -DREFINT_VERBOSE -I.
-I../../src/include -I/us
r/local/include  -c -o autoinc.o autoinc.c
        8 | extern Pg_finfo_record * pg_finfo_autoinc (void);
Pg_finfo_record * pg_finfo_a
utoinc (void) { static Pg_finfo_record my_finfo = { 1 }; return
&my_finfo; };
 
........................................................................
......
........................................................................
....a
a - 1506-137 (E) Declaration must declare at least one declarator, tag,
or the members of
an enumeration.

Andreas

Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:25:15 +0100
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>
Re: Call for platform testing
> 7.2b3 passes "make check" on AIX 4.3 with both xlc and gcc.
> 1 Rounding difference (last digit) and 3 0 vs -0 in the geometry tests
> when using gcc (both gcc and xlc show -0s, only different ones).

Thanks Andreas. Tatsuo is continuing testing on AIX 5.x, so I'll
continue to list 4.3 as supported for now.

                       - Thomas

Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:46:17 +0000
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org>
Re: Call for platform testing
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at> writes:
> The PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1 macro produces an annoying warning, that I
> cannot interpret:

> xlc -O2 -qmaxmem=16384 -qsrcmsg -qlonglong  -DREFINT_VERBOSE -I.
> -I../../src/include -I/usr/local/include  -c -o autoinc.o autoinc.c
>         8 | extern Pg_finfo_record * pg_finfo_autoinc (void);
> Pg_finfo_record * pg_finfo_a
> utoinc (void) { static Pg_finfo_record my_finfo = { 1 }; return
> &my_finfo; };
 
> ........................................................................
> ......
> ........................................................................
> ....a
> a - 1506-137 (E) Declaration must declare at least one declarator, tag,
> or the members of
> an enumeration.

It's not so much the macro as the semicolon after it.  I get "Empty
declaration" warnings from HP's cc for those lines myself.  Kind of
annoying, but not writing the semicolon in the source sounds uglier.

Is it worth adding a dummy declaration to the macro just to shut up
these compilers?  We could probably make the macro produce bogus
extern declarations, say PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1(foo) produces

extern Pg_finfo_record * pg_finfo_foo (void);
Pg_finfo_record * pg_finfo_foo (void)
{
  static Pg_finfo_record my_finfo = { 1 };
  return &my_finfo;
}
extern int pg_finfo_foo_dummy

which would satisfy even the most pedantic compiler ... unless it
chose to warn about unreferenced extern declarations, but I don't
think any do.

			regards, tom lane

Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:25:34 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Call for platform testing 