|From:||Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>|
|To:||Mark Cave-Ayland <mark(dot)cave-ayland(at)siriusit(dot)co(dot)uk>|
|Cc:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 12/12/2011 06:43 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
>>> 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.
> If we're talking about adding support for a previously-unsupported
> Definitely do this (and then file a bug report with the project). I've
> worked with both Kai and NightStrike from the MingW-W64 project to fix
> previous bugs, and as long as they can build the offending source
> themselves then they are very helpful and quick to respond.
Done and done (see
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2011-12-12 15:17:17||Is anybody actually using XLR_BKP_REMOVABLE?|
|Previous Message||Lars Kanis||2011-12-12 14:54:15||Re: [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64|