On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 02:12:55PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > Not really, it looks like you're using "-c" on this file too. This one,
> > however, is supposed to be compiled without "-c".
>
> Indeed I am, I changed all of the invocations. on my cell now so can't read
> the code - how do I
> > > This might be too simple but are you sure ecpg is called with option
> > > "-c" when compiling array_of_struct.pgc? It is listed that way in the
> > > Makefile, however lacking this option should generate exactly the file
> > > you sent.
> >
> > Well, bingo. With that, ti passes that check.
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 01:15:21PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > This might be too simple but are you sure ecpg is called with option
> > "-c" when compiling array_of_struct.pgc? It is listed that way in the
> > Makefile, however lacking this option should generate exactly the file
> > you sent
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 01:07:04PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 03:25:08PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > > /* exec sql type customer is struct { #line 12 "array_of_struct.pgc"
> > > > struct varchar_name_12 { int len; char arr[ 50 ]; } name; #line
> > > > 13
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 03:25:08PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > /* exec sql type customer is struct { #line 12 "array_of_struct.pgc"
> > > struct varchar_name_12 { int len; char arr[ 50 ]; } name; #line 13
> > > "array_of_struct.pgc" int phone; } */ #line 14
> > > "array_of_s
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 02:58:15PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 02:20:34PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > Irrk. The C file is very wrong indeed. Here's the relevant part where it
> > shoudl be declaring 'customer':
> > /* exec sql type customer is struct { #line 12 "arr
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 02:20:34PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Irrk. The C file is very wrong indeed. Here's the relevant part where it
> shoudl be declaring 'customer':
> /* exec sql type customer is struct { #line 12 "array_of_struct.pgc" struct
> varchar_name_12 { int len; char arr[ 50 ];
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 02:13:05PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 11:07:27AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > Oh, and I'm now seeing failures on my dev box with ECPG on the MSVC build
> > using "the old way" (.bat-files):
> > array_of_struct.c
> > array_of_struct.pg
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 11:07:27AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Oh, and I'm now seeing failures on my dev box with ECPG on the MSVC build
> using "the old way" (.bat-files):
> array_of_struct.c
> array_of_struct.pgc(26): error C2065: 'customer' : undeclared identifier
> array_of_stru
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 08:06:49AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >>To the best of my knowledge, I was never aware that the ECPG checks ever
> >>ran cleanly for MSVC, so I never enabled it for the buildfarm.
> >>
> >
> >Pah, it's even been in the weekly news ;-)
Magnus Hagander wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, I was never aware that the ECPG checks ever
ran cleanly for MSVC, so I never enabled it for the buildfarm.
Pah, it's even been in the weekly news ;-)
I read that at best sporadically.
Seriously, though, if you'd monitored your ow
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 06:00:46AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >If this has never run on the buildfarm, my guess is that it's been broken
> >for about 5 weeks - when the "major rewrite" got in.
> >
> >Can someone confirm if this has ever executed on the buildfarm?
Magnus Hagander wrote:
If this has never run on the buildfarm, my guess is that it's been broken
for about 5 weeks - when the "major rewrite" got in.
Can someone confirm if this has ever executed on the buildfarm? Or if they
the same errors with HEAD that I do? I haven't been running ecpgcheck
Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 11:51:47PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
However, neither the new nor the old scripts run ECPG tests on my setup,
so I have been unable to test that.
I'm confused. We have MSVC buildfarm animals that show green
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
However, neither the new nor the old scripts run ECPG tests on my setup,
so I have been unable to test that.
I'm confused. We have MSVC buildfarm animals that show green, so aren't
they getting through ECPG tests?
I can
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 11:51:47PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > However, neither the new nor the old scripts run ECPG tests on my setup,
> > so I have been unable to test that.
>
> I'm confused. We have MSVC buildfarm animals that show green, so aren't
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, neither the new nor the old scripts run ECPG tests on my setup,
> so I have been unable to test that.
I'm confused. We have MSVC buildfarm animals that show green, so aren't
they getting through ECPG tests?
> I can commit the new scripts now
I have reduced the build and regress .bat files to one liners:
build.bat:
@perl build.pl %*
vcregress.bat:
@perl vcregress.pl %*
These mirror exactly what the buildfarm will do when it's modified.
In fact, an unmodified buildfarm client run goes through cleanly with
these files.
However, n
18 matches
Mail list logo
