sorry. It is a macro.so, would it be better to
check for the macroas suggested by Tom or go with this patch$ diff -r configure.in configure.in.new918a919>
AC_MSG_CHECKING([for getaddrinfo])920c921,926<
AC_REPLACE_FUNCS([getaddrinfo])---> AC_TRY_LINK([#include
#include
],>
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:33:13PM +0530, R, Rajesh (STSD) wrote:
> Its not a macro.
> I meant that the code generated by AC_REPLACE_FUNCS([getaddrinfo]) by
> configure.in for "configure"
> does not have "#include ". Hence function is not
> detected(unresolved getaddrinfo).
> Hence I thought AC_TR
Message-From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Tuesday,
January 17, 2006 8:34 PMTo: R, Rajesh (STSD)Cc:
pgsql-hackers@postgresql.orgSubject: Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] [PATCH] Better
way to check for getaddrinfo function."R, Rajesh (STSD)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Where are we on this? Rajesh, I think we are waiting for more
information from you.
---
R, Rajesh (STSD) wrote:
>
> That was very much situation specific.
> But the bottomline is the default test does not include in the
>
"R, Rajesh (STSD)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But the bottomline is the default test does not include in the
> test code.
That's odd. Is getaddrinfo a macro on Tru64? If so, the appropriate
patch would probably make the test look more like the tests for finite()
and friends:
dnl Cannot use
Title: RE: [GENERAL] [PATCH] Better way to check for getaddrinfo function.
That was very much situation specific.
But the bottomline is the default test does not include in the test code.
So, pg uses getaddrinfo.c.And the getaddrinfo.c does not work for me.
Ipv6 client authenciation fa
"R, Rajesh (STSD)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just thought that the following patch might improve checking for
> getaddrinfo function (in configure.in)
Since AC_TRY_RUN tests cannot work in cross-compilation scenarios,
you need an *extremely* good reason to put one in. "I thought this
might im
