Re: Re: [PATCHES] patch for minor Win32 makefile bug - Mailing list pgsql-ports

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Re: [PATCHES] patch for minor Win32 makefile bug
Date
Msg-id 309.986359448@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Re: [PATCHES] patch for minor Win32 makefile bug  (Jason Tishler <Jason.Tishler@dothill.com>)
Responses Re: Re: [PATCHES] patch for minor Win32 makefile bug
List pgsql-ports
Jason Tishler <Jason.Tishler@dothill.com> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 06:03:45PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm.  It seems a little bit weird (no, a lot weird) to be referencing
>> -lpostgres for the client-side interface library builds.  I can see that
>> the PL-language DLLs might need to reference -lpostgres during their
>> links, but I've got severe doubts that this is a good idea anyplace
>> else.

> You are correct.  I just verified by using MS's dumpbin that none
> of the above DLLs except for plpgsql.dll actually import any symbols
> from libpostgres.a.  Hence, linking the client-side interface libraries
> with libpostgres.a is superfluous.
> However, you missed a few regression test related DLLs.  See below for
> details.

Good point; those DLLs link into the backend.

Maybe Makefile.win should define FE_DLLLIBS (for frontend libraries)
and BE_DLLLIBS (for backend libraries).  That would require any
particular Makefile that's building a DLL to select one or the other
to define DLLLIBS as, before it could include Makefile.shlib.  Is that
approach good for clarity, or too much of a pain-in-the-neck?

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-ports by date:

Previous
From: Jason Tishler
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCHES] patch for minor Win32 makefile bug
Next
From: Jason Tishler
Date:
Subject: Re: FAQ_MSWIN patch