|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|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
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.
|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|