From: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: _CRT_glob stuff |
Date: | 2025-09-18 15:15:30 |
Message-ID: | CAOYmi+m-G8iqXGYmVbP1uODyAnV9QpkBQXc+K8UR9Yzpv73wjQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 3:03 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
> Here is some relevant documentation that suggests that this is the
> correct approach:
>
> https://github.com/mingw-w64/mingw-w64/blob/master/mingw-w64-headers/crt/_mingw.h.in#L476
>
> This also says that the default is 0 anyway, so it's not clear whether
> this is even useful anymore. The commit that introduced this (commit
> b787c554c26) is from 2022, so it's not that long ago. (It appears to be
> some old mingw vs. new mingw issue?)
So if MinGW already defines its own version of this symbol [1], how
does this work in practice? Would it actually do anything if we
assigned -1 instead?
--Jacob
[1] https://github.com/mingw-w64/mingw-w64/blob/8181947c/mingw-w64-crt/crt/wildcard.c
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2025-09-18 15:18:04 | Re: someone else to do the list of acknowledgments |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2025-09-18 15:13:11 | Re: someone else to do the list of acknowledgments |