
> > Anyone have stuff that they need to get in there before beta2?
> 
> Yes. doesn't compile on AIX 5L. I would like to fix it before beta2
> (see attached pacthes below).

IIRC not all (old) versions of AIX define those, thus your patch would 
break those that havent :-( I am not sure we care about those old
versions
anymore though. 
Also I actually see those defines as a bug in AIX, since a comment
states,
that BSD requires them, I certainly havent heard BSD'ers complain about 
redefines ?

Also I don't understand why your compiler stops ? Mine only give a
warning.

These defines are only included if _ALL_SOURCE is defined. I think this
define 
stems from another system header file, that gets included somewhere
else.
Maybe a better fix would be to #undef _ALL_SOURCE before including
inttypes.h ?

Andreas

Mon, 5 Nov 2001 10:45:54 +0100
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>
Re: Beta going well 
> IIRC not all (old) versions of AIX define those, thus your patch would 
> break those that havent :-( I am not sure we care about those old
> versions
> anymore though. 
> Also I actually see those defines as a bug in AIX, since a comment
> states,
> that BSD requires them, I certainly havent heard BSD'ers complain about 
> redefines ?
> 
> Also I don't understand why your compiler stops ? Mine only give a
> warning.
> 
> These defines are only included if _ALL_SOURCE is defined. I think this
> define 
> stems from another system header file, that gets included somewhere
> else.
> Maybe a better fix would be to #undef _ALL_SOURCE before including
> inttypes.h ?

Ok, let me see if it fixes the problems.
--
Tatsuo Ishii

Mon, 05 Nov 2001 21:23:15 +0900
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp>
Re: Beta going well 
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at> writes:
> Maybe a better fix would be to #undef _ALL_SOURCE before including
> inttypes.h ?

Is it possible to avoid including inttypes.h altogether?

			regards, tom lane

Mon, 05 Nov 2001 10:43:57 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Beta going well 
> Also I don't understand why your compiler stops ? Mine only give a
> warning.

Maybe due to the difference of the compiler verion. xlc coming with
AIX 5L stops. Note that gcc doesn't. What is your OS version?

> These defines are only included if _ALL_SOURCE is defined. I think this
> define 
> stems from another system header file, that gets included somewhere
> else.
> Maybe a better fix would be to #undef _ALL_SOURCE before including
> inttypes.h ?

It seems inttypes.h is included by types.h which is included by
stdio.h which is included by c.h. I inserted #undef into c.h but it
does not help at all:-<
--
Tatsuo Ishii

Tue, 06 Nov 2001 11:56:47 +0900
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp>
Re: Beta going well 
> "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at> writes:
> > Maybe a better fix would be to #undef _ALL_SOURCE before including
> > inttypes.h ?
> 
> Is it possible to avoid including inttypes.h altogether?

It seems not possible. inttypes.h is included by types.h which is
included by stdio.h which is included by c.h.
--
Tatsuo Ishii

Tue, 06 Nov 2001 11:58:28 +0900
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp>
Re: Beta going well 
From: Jean-Michel POURE <jm.poure@freesurf.fr>
Subject: Java's Unicode Notation 
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 14:12:04 +0100
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20011108141018.00a59dc0@pop.freesurf.fr>

> Dear Tatsuo,
> 
> Could it be possible to use the Java Unicode Notation to define UTF-8 
> strings in PostgreSQL 7.2.

No. It's too late. We are in the beta freeze stage.

> Information can be found on http://czyborra.com/utf/
> 
> Do you think it is hard to implement?
> 
> Best regards,
> Jean-Michel POURE
> 
> ************************************************
> Java's Unicode Notation
> There are some less compact but more readable ASCII transformations the 
> most important of which is the Java Unicode Notation as allowed in Java 
> source code and processed by Java's native2ascii converter:
> putwchar(c)
> {
> if (c >= 0x10000) {
> printf ("\\u%04x\\u%04x" , 0xD7C0 + (c >> 10), 0xDC00 | c & 0x3FF);
> }
> else if (c >= 0x100) printf ("\\u%04x", c);
> else putchar (c);
> }
> The advantage of the \u20ac notation is that it is very easy to type it in 
> on any old ASCII keyboard and easy to look up the intended character if you 
> happen to have a copy of the Unicode book or the 
> {unidata2,names2,unihan}.txt files from the Unicode FTP site or CD-ROM or 
> know what U+20AC is the �.
> What's not so nice about the \u20ac notation is that the small letters are 
> quite unusual for Unicode characters, the backslashes have to be quoted for 
> many Unix tools, the four hexdigits without a terminator may appear merged 
> with the following word as in \u00a333 for ��33, it is unclear when and how 
> you have to escape the backslash character itself, 6 bytes for one 
> character may be considered wasteful, and there is no way to clearly 
> present the characters beyond \uffff without \ud800\udc00 surrogates, and 
> last but not least the plain hexnumbers may not be very helpful.
> JAVA is one of the target and source encodings of yudit and its uniconv 
> converter.
> 

Sun, 11 Nov 2001 19:04:22 +0900
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp>
Re: Java's Unicode Notation 