| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: _CRT_glob stuff |
| Date: | 2025-09-19 07:37:46 |
| Message-ID: | 189a4251-f3d4-499a-9ca7-b8fbd31098f3@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 18.09.25 17:15, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 3:03 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
>> Here is some relevant documentation that suggests that this is the
>> correct approach:
>>
>> https://github.com/mingw-w64/mingw-w64/blob/master/mingw-w64-headers/crt/_mingw.h.in#L476
>>
>> This also says that the default is 0 anyway, so it's not clear whether
>> this is even useful anymore. The commit that introduced this (commit
>> b787c554c26) is from 2022, so it's not that long ago. (It appears to be
>> some old mingw vs. new mingw issue?)
>
> So if MinGW already defines its own version of this symbol [1], how
> does this work in practice? Would it actually do anything if we
> assigned -1 instead?
Yes, if you do that, the pg_amcheck test 'schema exclusion pattern
overrides all inclusion patterns' fails, which has an entirely plausible
causality.
As to how it works, I'm not sure, but I suppose the linker somehow
arranges the initializations in the right order.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2025-09-19 07:39:08 | Re: encode/decode support for base64url |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2025-09-19 07:16:35 | Re: encode/decode support for base64url |