Re: [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Lars Kanis
Subject Re: [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64
Date
Msg-id 45658990.UEWY18gmNU@c1170lx
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Am Montag, 12. Dezember 2011, 10:19:46 schrieb Andrew Dunstan:
> 
> 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.

Ok. Thanks for clarification.

Kind regards,
Lars



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Is anybody actually using XLR_BKP_REMOVABLE?