Обсуждение: [GENERAL] Porting libpq to QNX 4.25
Is there a libpq porting to QNX 4.25? I just tried to compile one of the modules, but was rejected because the QNX's standard library have not an Int64 type. TIA
On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 13:27:56 -0300, marcelo <marcelo.nicolet@gmail.com> wrote: >Is there a libpq porting to QNX 4.25? I just tried to compile one of the >modules, but was rejected because the QNX's standard library have not an >Int64 type. >TIA QNX 4.25 is very old (mid 90's) - its toolchain compiler would be C90 unless you've replaced it with something newer. I'm pretty sure int64_t was not yet a standard type until C99. However, many (most?) compilers already supported 64-bit ints as an extension years before the standard emerged. You might try "__int64", or "long long" (with or without space). Or search the headers for a *_MAX constant equal to 9223372036854775807. [i.e. (2^63)-1] George
I'm pretty sure that Watcom 9.6 libraries lacks long long or any such variants. And, of course, I don' t have another tool chain. Thank you On 21/08/17 22:20, George Neuner wrote: > On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 13:27:56 -0300, marcelo > <marcelo.nicolet@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Is there a libpq porting to QNX 4.25? I just tried to compile one of the >> modules, but was rejected because the QNX's standard library have not an >> Int64 type. >> TIA > QNX 4.25 is very old (mid 90's) - its toolchain compiler would be C90 > unless you've replaced it with something newer. I'm pretty sure > int64_t was not yet a standard type until C99. > > However, many (most?) compilers already supported 64-bit ints as an > extension years before the standard emerged. > > You might try "__int64", or "long long" (with or without space). Or > search the headers for a *_MAX constant equal to 9223372036854775807. > [i.e. (2^63)-1] > > George > > >
marcelo <marcelo.nicolet@gmail.com> writes: > Is there a libpq porting to QNX 4.25? I just tried to compile one of the > modules, but was rejected because the QNX's standard library have not an > Int64 type. We removed QNX support in 8.2, so you could try using some pre-8.2 release. It's possible it was broken for awhile before that, though, since the reason for killing it was that no one had shown any interest in testing it in a long time. regards, tom lane
Thank you, Tom. We'll replace those QNX machines with WIndows XP ones (via dual boot), so we can use our Devart's ORM the same as the most "user oriented" applications. On 22/08/17 12:39, Tom Lane wrote: > marcelo <marcelo.nicolet@gmail.com> writes: >> Is there a libpq porting to QNX 4.25? I just tried to compile one of the >> modules, but was rejected because the QNX's standard library have not an >> Int64 type. > We removed QNX support in 8.2, so you could try using some pre-8.2 > release. It's possible it was broken for awhile before that, though, > since the reason for killing it was that no one had shown any interest > in testing it in a long time. > > regards, tom lane >
On 2017-08-22 12:57:15 -0300, marcelo wrote: > We'll replace those QNX machines with WIndows XP ones The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed. SCNR, hp -- _ | Peter J. Holzer | we build much bigger, better disasters now |_|_) | | because we have much more sophisticated | | | hjp@hjp.at | management tools. __/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Ross Anderson <https://www.edge.org/>
Вложения
Hi Peter Do you believe the only path is Windows 10? Those machines are commanding Zebra printers and collecting data in a very harsh environment. So, the cheaper, the better. Why not Linux? Simply because I have Devart's Entity Developer and linqConnect to interface with postgres and I prefer to do all the development using only one paradigm. My best regards Marcelo On 25/08/17 15:26, Peter J. Holzer wrote: > On 2017-08-22 12:57:15 -0300, marcelo wrote: >> We'll replace those QNX machines with WIndows XP ones > The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed. > > SCNR, > hp >
Do you believe the only path is Windows 10?
Not Peter...But I believe there are better choices considering if this has to be on any sort of network, you're going to be potentially vulnerable to any number of never-to-be-patched security holes. Using XP in this day and age is a hard argument to make in my eyes.