Re: SSPI vs MingW
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SSPI vs MingW |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20070723125527.GG29554@svr2.hagander.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SSPI vs MingW (Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 11:06:59AM +0100, Dave Page wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: > > I just came across yet another place where MingW isn't compatible with the > > windows api. Specifically, their libsecur32.a file lacks at least one > > function that is needed to implement SSPI authentication. The way I can see > > it, there are three ways to solve it: > > Ugh. Indeed. > > 1) Simply state that SSPI authentication in the backend cannot be built > > with mingw, and require msvc build for it (the msvc api follows the windows > > api, which is hardly surprising). We could add an autoconf test for it > > that'd pick up an updated libsecur32.a file if/when mingw release an > > update. > > I prefer this option, if only because I have little interest in > supporting mingw any longer than necessarily, but I realise others may > want to use it so... Heh, well, I don't see that one going away... > > 2) Ship our own secur32.def file, and automatically build an import library > > for it that we can link against. Because the function is present in the DLL > > file, this works fine. > > Yuck. > > > 3) Dynamically load the function at runtime, thus completely ignoring the > > need for an import library for it. > > That gets my vote. It's relatively clean and non-kludgy. Ok, jus so people knowing what amount of code we're talking about, here's a patch that does this. Awaiting further comments :-) //Magnus
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: