| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| 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 20:11:34 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaNJ8=jxApnU5yjqCEFitR=EeY-NaiRgTeJ6iGGFteNHA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-12-09 20:31:17 | Re: [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-12-09 20:07:34 | Re: [PATCH] pg_test_fsync: Delete temporary file when aborted by a signal |