> > Just wanted to give a short message, that current snapshot does not 
> > compile on AIX due to the fmgr changes.
> 
> Without more details, that's completely unhelpful.

Yes sorry, I just wanted to know if somebody already knows, 
or is working on it, before going into detail.

xlc -I../../../include -I/usr/local/include -qmaxmem=16384 -qhalt=w -qsrcmsg
-qlanglvl=ext
ended -qlonglong -I/usr/local/include  -c -o dfmgr.o dfmgr.c
"../../../include/utils/dynamic_loader.h", line 26.14: 1506-276 (S) Syntax
error: possible
 missing identifier?
"../../../include/utils/dynamic_loader.h", line 26.14: 1506-282 (S) The type
of the parame
ters must be specified in a prototype.
"../../../include/utils/dynamic_loader.h", line 27.19: 1506-343 (S)
Redeclaration of dlsym
 differs from previous declaration on line 36 of
"../../../include/dynloader.h".
"../../../include/utils/dynamic_loader.h", line 27.19: 1506-050 (I) Return
type "unsigned
long(*)(struct FunctionCallInfoData*)" in redeclaration is not compatible
with the previou
s return type "void*".
"../../../include/utils/dynamic_loader.h", line 28.13: 1506-343 (S)
Redeclaration of dlclo
se differs from previous declaration on line 38 of
"../../../include/dynloader.h".
"../../../include/utils/dynamic_loader.h", line 28.13: 1506-050 (I) Return
type "void" in
redeclaration is not compatible with the previous return type "int".
"../../../include/utils/dynamic_loader.h", line 29.25: 1506-215 (E) Too many
arguments spe
cified for macro pg_dlerror.
gmake[4]: *** [dfmgr.o] Error 1

Why do you declare dlopen, dlsym, ... in dynamic_loader.h ?
They are defined in the port specific dynloader.h .
Why do you use "void pg_dlclose" when dlclose is "int dlclose" ?
This makes a wrapper function necessary.

Same with "PGFunction pg_dlsym" when dlsym is "void *dlsym"

What I tried is in the attachment, but I guess at least the cast in dfmgr.c
is unwanted.

Andreas
Wed, 12 Jul 2000 17:41:22 +0200
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>
AW: fmgr changes not yet ported to AIX 
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at> writes:
> Why do you declare dlopen, dlsym, ... in dynamic_loader.h ?
> They are defined in the port specific dynloader.h .
> Why do you use "void pg_dlclose" when dlclose is "int dlclose" ?
> This makes a wrapper function necessary.

It seems to me that the real problem here is that someone tried to
take shortcuts in the AIX dynloader code.  Instead of implementing
the same interface that the rest of the ports support, the AIX files
try to force their own definition of the pg_dlXXX functions --- and
for what?  To save a wrapper function?  These are hardly performance-
critical routines, so I don't see the point.

I propose the following changes instead.  I don't have any way to
test them however --- would you check them?

			regards, tom lane

*** aix.h~	Mon Jul 17 00:40:12 2000
--- aix.h	Mon Jul 17 00:41:34 2000
***************
*** 45,56 ****
  
  #ifdef __cplusplus
  }
- 
  #endif
- 
- #define  pg_dlopen(f)	dlopen(filename, RTLD_LAZY)
- #define  pg_dlsym(h,f)	dlsym(h, f)
- #define  pg_dlclose(h)	dlclose(h)
- #define  pg_dlerror()	dlerror()
  
  #endif	 /* __dlfcn_h__ */
--- 45,50 ----
*** aix.c~	Mon Jul 17 00:40:19 2000
--- aix.c	Mon Jul 17 00:45:34 2000
***************
*** 601,603 ****
--- 601,631 ----
  	free(buf);
  	return ret;
  }
+ 
+ /*
+  * PostgreSQL interface to the above functions
+  */
+ 
+ void *
+ pg_dlopen(char *filename)
+ {
+ 	return dlopen(filename, RTLD_LAZY);
+ }
+ 
+ PGFunction
+ pg_dlsym(void *handle, char *funcname)
+ {
+ 	return (PGFunction) dlsym(handle, funcname);
+ }
+ 
+ void
+ pg_dlclose(void *handle)
+ {
+ 	dlclose(h);
+ }
+ 
+ char *
+ pg_dlerror()
+ {
+ 	return dlerror();
+ }

Mon, 17 Jul 2000 00:55:06 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: AW: fmgr changes not yet ported to AIX 