Re: [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: NISHIYAMA Tomoaki <tomoakin(at)staff(dot)kanazawa-u(dot)ac(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64
Date: 2011-12-09 20:31:17
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 12/09/2011 03:11 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Andrew Dunstan<andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>> This is apparently an optimization bug in the compiler. If I turn
>> optimization off (CFLAGS=-O0) it goes away. Ick.
>> So at the moment I'm a bit blocked. I can't really file a bug because the
>> compiler can't currently be used to build postgres, I don't have time to
>> construct a self-contained test case, and I don't want to commit changes to
>> enable the compiler until the issue is solved.
> If we're talking about adding support for a previously-unsupported
> configuration, it seems to me that it would be fine to commit a patch
> that made everything work, but for the compiler bug. We could refrain
> from stating that we officially support that configuration until the
> compiler bug is fixed, or even document the existence of the bug. We
> can't be responsible for other people's broken code, but I don't
> necessarily see that as a reason not to commit a prerequisite patch.
> Otherwise, as you say, there's a chicken-and-egg problem, and who does
> that help?

Yeah, fair enough. I'll work on that.



In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2011-12-09 20:40:03 Re: Review of VS 2010 support patches
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-12-09 20:11:34 Re: [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64