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

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Lars Kanis <kanis(at)comcard(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, NISHIYAMA Tomoaki <tomoakin(at)staff(dot)kanazawa-u(dot)ac(dot)jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64
Date: 2011-12-12 15:19:46
Message-ID: 4EE61B92.7080605@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 12/12/2011 09:54 AM, Lars Kanis wrote:
> Am Freitag, 9. Dezember 2011, 15:31:17 schrieb Andrew Dunstan:
>> Yeah, fair enough. I'll work on that.
> Many thanks for reviewing, tweaking and commiting the patch!
> One thing I wonder about, is this snippet. Is the define really needed now?
>
> * The Mingw64 headers choke if this is already defined - they
> * define it themselves.
> */
> #if !defined(__MINGW64_VERSION_MAJOR) || defined(WIN32_ONLY_COMPILER)
> #define _WINSOCKAPI_
> #endif
> #include<winsock2.h>
>
>
>

As previously discussed, unless you can prove it's not needed I don't
want to remove it, on the ""if it ain't broke don't fix it" principle. I
believe it is needed for at least some older compilers (specifically
some of those used by buildfarm animals narwhal, frogmouth, mastodon,
hamerkop and currawong), and it doesn't appear to be hurting anything.
As you can see above it's been disabled for all Mingw-w64 compilers.

If it's really bugging people we can try disabling it and see if any of
those break, but honestly we have far uglier things that we carry for
legacy reasons :-)

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lars Kanis 2011-12-12 15:30:48 Re: [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-12-12 15:17:17 Is anybody actually using XLR_BKP_REMOVABLE?