Re: Complier warnings on mingw gcc 4.5.0

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hiroshi Inoue <inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Complier warnings on mingw gcc 4.5.0
Date: 2010-12-15 16:19:53
Message-ID: 4D08EAA9.4070505@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 12/15/2010 10:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of mié dic 15 02:08:24 -0300 2010:
>>> That didn't work. But git bisect says it's this commit that's to blame:
>>> <https://github.com/postgres/postgres/commit/e710b65c1c56ca7b91f662c63d37ff2e72862a94>
>> Hmm I wonder if this is reproducible in a non-Windows EXEC_BACKEND
>> scenario.
> I'm pretty sure I tried the no-flat-files code in that scenario while
> writing it. But it might be worth trying that again. You'd think
> though that if EXEC_BACKEND were sufficient to provoke it, all Windows
> builds would fail. I'm still mystified by what is the difference
> between Andrew's non-working installation and working mingw builds.
>
>

This is a new installation of Mingw. The buildfarm animals were set up
years ago, with substantially older versions of Mingw. SO ISTM that
either we have tickled a new bug of theirs or their new setup has
tickled a bug of ours.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-12-15 16:21:00 Re: ALTER TABLE ... REPLACE WITH
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-12-15 16:17:02 Re: CommitFest wrap-up