--- Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Patrick Samson wrote:
>
> >
> > From a working source of Postgresql:
> >
> > static int pltcl_elog(ClientData cdata, Tcl_Interp
> *interp,
> >int argc, CONST84 char *argv[]);
> > ^^^
> >
> > I'm
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Patrick Samson wrote:
> --- Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > Arg #3 is a pointer to a function (Tcl_CmdProc). See where that's
> > declared *in the preprocessed file* (so that all macros are expanded)
> > and see if your declarations of GetTimeFromSecs, etc, correspond to
> > it.
--- Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> Arg #3 is a pointer to a function (Tcl_CmdProc).
> See where that's
> declared *in the preprocessed file* (so that all
> macros are expanded) and
> see if your declarations of GetTimeFromSecs, etc,
> correspond to it. The
> most obvious mismatch is probably the "co
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, CV wrote:
> Igor Pechtchanski cs.nyu.edu> writes:
> > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, CV wrote:
> > > After running the command "gcc -E ext.c -o ext.pre" and then
> > > comparing ext.pre with tcl.h I think I can identify some of
> > > the included bits, eg. the following:
> >
> > You co
Igor Pechtchanski cs.nyu.edu> writes:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, CV wrote:
> > After running the command "gcc -E ext.c -o ext.pre" and then
> > comparing ext.pre with tcl.h I think I can identify some of
> > the included bits, eg. the following:
>
> You could also just look at the '# line' lines, e.g
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, CV wrote:
> Igor Pechtchanski cs.nyu.edu> writes:
>
> > Did you check whether tcl.h gets included? If it is, it could be a bug in
> > ext.c.
>
> I ran gcc -E as you suggested but was not sure how to interpret
> the results. Looking at it a bit more closely I think it is clea
Igor Pechtchanski cs.nyu.edu> writes:
> Did you check whether tcl.h gets included? If it is, it could be a bug in
> ext.c.
I ran gcc -E as you suggested but was not sure how to interpret
the results. Looking at it a bit more closely I think it is clear
that tcl.h _does_ get included:
After run
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, CV wrote:
Thanks for your help Igor.
Actually I found the answer by googling for
"___RUNTIME_PSEUDO_RELOC_LIST__". Someone had that problem fixed by
upgrading to the latest binutils.
Ah, right, that would do it. Strangely enough, Googling for partial
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, CV wrote:
> Thanks for your help Igor.
>
> Actually I found the answer by googling for
> "___RUNTIME_PSEUDO_RELOC_LIST__". Someone had that problem fixed by
> upgrading to the latest binutils.
Ah, right, that would do it. Strangely enough, Googling for partial
string ("RUNTI
Thanks for your help Igor.
Actually I found the answer by googling for
"___RUNTIME_PSEUDO_RELOC_LIST__". Someone had that problem
fixed by upgrading to the latest binutils.
I checked and my binutils was a 2002 version
while there is a 2004... one available.
What I can't understand is how an ol
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, CV wrote:
> Hello,
> FileRunner is a nifty little file manager that I have been
> using for years under Linux and I would like to have it under
> cygwin as well.
>
> But I am stuck with installation on cygwin because I can't
> get the included, very simple c-program to compile
Hello,
FileRunner is a nifty little file manager that I have been
using for years under Linux and I would like to have it under
cygwin as well.
But I am stuck with installation on cygwin because I can't
get the included, very simple c-program to compile, probably
due to my own cluelessness about w
12 matches
Mail list logo
