On sön, 2010-01-03 at 00:24 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 00:20, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> > On lör, 2010-01-02 at 16:29 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 16:23, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> >> > On lör, 2010-01-02 at 15:42 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> >> When trying to build plpython on win64, it fails because ssize_t is
> >> >> defined differently.
> >> >>
> >> >> PostgreSQL has it as
> >> >> typedef long ssize_t;
> >> >>
> >> >> And python has it as:
> >> >> typedef __int64 ssize_t;
> >> >
> >> > What file/line is that? I don't see that in my copies.
> >>
> >> You mean in python? It's in pyconfig.h, line 205 (the version
> >> manually maintained for non-autoconf platforms). The version I have
> >> is:
> >> Python 2.6.4 (r264:75708, Oct 26 2009, 07:36:50) [MSC v.1500 64 bit
> >> (AMD64)] on win32
> >
> > Seems kind of buggy. They shouldn't be defining it at all.
>
> Why not? Should they just stop using it? In that case, so should we, no?
Python only uses ssize_t to define Py_ssize_t, and they could do that
without exposing their own definition of ssize_t if it's missing. But
as long as these hacks are constrained to one platform, it might not be
worth worrying about.