Re: [HACKERS] plperl failure on OS X 10.5(.1)

2007-11-21 Thread Brandon Maust
On 21 Nov, 2007, at 11:38 , Tom Lane wrote: Brandon Maust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: yes, it is sucking it in (via handy.h), at least in 10.5: #if 1 /* always on Mac OS X */ # include # ifndef HAS_BOOL #define HAS_BOOL 1 # endif #endif Nasty. I'm still surprised that there's no r

Re: [HACKERS] plperl failure on OS X 10.5(.1)

2007-11-21 Thread Tom Lane
Brandon Maust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > yes, it is sucking it in (via handy.h), at least in 10.5: > #if 1 /* always on Mac OS X */ > # include > # ifndef HAS_BOOL > #define HAS_BOOL 1 > # endif > #endif Nasty. I'm still surprised that there's no redefinition warning for "false" and "

Re: [HACKERS] plperl failure on OS X 10.5(.1)

2007-11-21 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > Apparently 5.8.8 > is sucking stdbool.h into the compile where 5.8.6 did not. Can you > track down just what the inclusion path is? I pulled down the perl 5.8.8 sources and cannot find a reference to stdbool.h anywhere. What I do find is that "handy.h" defines what Perl thinks bool is

Re: [HACKERS] plperl failure on OS X 10.5(.1)

2007-11-21 Thread Brandon Maust
On 21 Nov, 2007, at 10:50 , Tom Lane wrote: Brandon Maust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: On 21 Nov, 2007, at 08:39 , Tom Lane wrote: Seems the question is not so much about OS X as it is about what perl you're using ... it's 5.8.8, as provided by apple (same for gcc, etc): perl on OS X does

Re: [HACKERS] plperl failure on OS X 10.5(.1)

2007-11-21 Thread Tom Lane
Brandon Maust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 21 Nov, 2007, at 08:39 , Tom Lane wrote: >> Seems the question is not so much about OS X as it is about what >> perl you're using ... > it's 5.8.8, as provided by apple (same for gcc, etc): > perl on OS X does look to be constitutively defining a 'bo

Re: [HACKERS] plperl failure on OS X 10.5(.1)

2007-11-21 Thread Brandon Maust
On 21 Nov, 2007, at 08:39 , Tom Lane wrote: Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Nothing fatal? Huh, you have a curious idea about warnings. This makes me think you have the wrong headers or something -- the argument mentioned in all these cases is bool, so maybe there is an ABI inco

Re: [HACKERS] plperl failure on OS X 10.5(.1)

2007-11-21 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Nothing fatal? Huh, you have a curious idea about warnings. This makes > me think you have the wrong headers or something -- the argument > mentioned in all these cases is bool, so maybe there is an ABI > incompatibility somewhere. Yeah, and it's hard

Re: [HACKERS] plperl failure on OS X 10.5(.1)

2007-11-21 Thread Alvaro Herrera
B. Maust wrote: > there were a few warnings building plperl: > > gcc -no-cpp-precomp -O2 -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Winline > -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wendif-labels -fno-strict-aliasing -I. > -I../../../src/include > -I/System/Library/Perl/5.8.8/darwin-thread-multi-2lev

[HACKERS] plperl failure on OS X 10.5(.1)

2007-11-21 Thread B. Maust
I mentioned in #postgres a bit ago to no avail that I couldn't get my plperl stored procedures to work after upgrading to OS X 10.5, with only a obtuse "ERROR: null prosrc". I was using 8.2.4 and didn't want to make a big deal about a non-current release, but today I had a chance to build 8.3