Re: [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4EE27015.9040103@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64 (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64
Re: [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64 |
Список | 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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: