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 4EE61B92.7080605@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64  (Lars Kanis <kanis@comcard.de>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64  (Lars Kanis <kanis@comcard.de>)
List pgsql-hackers

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.

If it's really bugging people we can try disabling it and see if any of 
those break, but honestly we have far uglier things that we carry for 
legacy reasons :-)

cheers

andrew



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Is anybody actually using XLR_BKP_REMOVABLE?
Next
From: Lars Kanis
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64