Re: DLL export with mingw-w64: currently a no-op

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: DLL export with mingw-w64: currently a no-op
Date: 2011-05-04 15:11:57
Message-ID: 4DC16CBD.1000506@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 05/04/2011 01:25 AM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
> On Tue, 03 May 2011 12:40:28 -0000, Andrew Dunstan
> <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>
>> Our Makefiles use dlltool and dllwrap to create DLLs. If you used our
>> recommended build method pgxs would do lots of the work for you.
>>
>> I'm not sure why you asked the mingw-w64 team about building a
>> Postgres extension - they are unlikely to know anything much about
>> our build system.
>
> However, they do know about the mingw build tools. In particular, from:
> http://oldwiki.mingw.org/index.php/dllwrap
>
> "dllwrap is a tool to build DLLs. It seems to be deprecated in favour of
> gcc -shared option, but some projects still use it. SQLite, for example."
>
> Armed with this information, it may be prudent review the DLL build
> process in PGXS.
>
> For the record: I originally asked the mingw-w64 team for help to link
> against the 64bit JVM.DLL for which there was no corresponding .def file.
>
>
> Google cache:
>
> http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tZkweT_cNQQJ:oldwiki.mingw.org/index.php/dllwrap+mingw+dllwrap&cd=1&hl=is&ct=clnk&gl=is&client=opera&source=www.google.is

OK, but if we want to get rid of using dllwrap we'd need a complete
patch for it. Just changing the definition of the macro without changing
the rest isn't going to cut it, I think. But it might well be worth doing.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Korry Douglas 2011-05-04 15:19:33 Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-05-04 14:36:10 Re: branching for 9.2devel