Re: LLVM compile failing in seawasp
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, didier <did447@gmail.com>,
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, buildfarm@coelho.net
Date: 2019-07-28T13:54:05Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> writes: > Otherwise, why not simply move llvm C++ includes *before* postgres > includes? We've been burnt in the past by putting other headers before postgres.h. (A typical issue is that the interpretation of <stdio.h> varies depending on _LARGE_FILES or a similar macro, so you get problems if something causes that to be included before pg_config.h has set that macro.) Maybe none of the platforms where that's an issue have C++, but that doesn't seem like a great assumption. > They should be fully independent anyway, so the order should > not matter? On what grounds do you claim that's true anywhere, let alone everywhere? regards, tom lane
Commits
-
Avoid macro clash with LLVM 9.
- 0ef70bbaddb6 11.5 landed
- 180825fe43ec 12.0 landed
- a2a777d01197 13.0 landed