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

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64
Date
Msg-id 4EE27015.9040103@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64  (Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayland@siriusit.co.uk>)
Re: [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64  (Lars Kanis <kanis@comcard.de>)
List pgsql-hackers

On 12/09/2011 03:11 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Andrew Dunstan<andrew@dunslane.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?
>


Yeah, fair enough. I'll work on that.

cheers

andrew



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: RangeVarGetRelid()