On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 4:33 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> But I don't get the point about where HEAD is different from v14?
> be-secure-openssl.c isn't.
I don't understand what's going on and I don't have the headers to
look at, but I was thinking that WIN32_LEAN_AND_MEAN must be causing a
different state to be reached that somehow leaves the bad definition
of X509_NAME in place. It's confusing though, because you'd hope
that'd cause *less* stuff to get defined...
