Re: _CRT_glob stuff
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: _CRT_glob stuff |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 189a4251-f3d4-499a-9ca7-b8fbd31098f3@eisentraut.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: _CRT_glob stuff (Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: _CRT_glob stuff
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 18.09.25 17:15, Jacob Champion wrote: > On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 3:03 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote: >> Here is some relevant documentation that suggests that this is the >> correct approach: >> >> https://github.com/mingw-w64/mingw-w64/blob/master/mingw-w64-headers/crt/_mingw.h.in#L476 >> >> This also says that the default is 0 anyway, so it's not clear whether >> this is even useful anymore. The commit that introduced this (commit >> b787c554c26) is from 2022, so it's not that long ago. (It appears to be >> some old mingw vs. new mingw issue?) > > So if MinGW already defines its own version of this symbol [1], how > does this work in practice? Would it actually do anything if we > assigned -1 instead? Yes, if you do that, the pg_amcheck test 'schema exclusion pattern overrides all inclusion patterns' fails, which has an entirely plausible causality. As to how it works, I'm not sure, but I suppose the linker somehow arranges the initializations in the right order.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: