Re: AW: AW: AW: Re: tinterval - operator problems on AIX
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: AW: AW: AW: Re: tinterval - operator problems on AIX |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.30.0101201644001.1033-100000@peter.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: AW: AW: AW: Re: tinterval - operator problems on AIX (Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Ian Lance Taylor writes: > > This would seem to be the right answer, but unfortunately Autoconf is not > > smart enough to detect marginal cross-compilation cases in all situations. > > Someone had zlib installed in a location where gcc would find it (compiles > > okay) but the run-time linker would not (does not run). This is not > > detected when AC_PROG_CC runs, but only later on after you have checked > > for the libraries. > > Hmmm. I would not describe that as a cross-compilation case at all. > The build machine and the host machine are the same. Only for small values of "same". ;-) Sameness is not defined by the names being spelled identically or the physical coincidence of the hardware. There are a million things you can do to a system that supposedly preserve binary compatibility, such as installing vendor patches or changing a setting in /etc. But if you run a test program is such a situation you're testing the wrong system. > I would describe that as a case where the compiler search path and the > run time library search path are not the same. The assumption is surely that the user would set LD_LIBRARY_PATH or configure his linker before running the program. But nothing guarantees that he'll actually set the search path to /usr/local/lib, which is what gcc was searching in this situation. > Clearly differences between search paths matter, but they are not the > same as cross-compilation. It's not the same as the classical Canadian Cross, but it's still cross enough to concern me. ;-) -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://yi.org/peter-e/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: