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: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, 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: 2010-12-16 02:20:25
Message-ID: 4D097769.6030905@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 12/15/2010 08:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> I believe #2 is in fact necessary. When I tried just #1 before it
>> failed. What's the best way to do #2 cleanly?
> We can't change the meaning of HAVE_INT_OPTRESET because that would
> break the declaration logic in getopt.c. I'm thinking we have to
> complicate the #if logic in postmaster.c and postgres.c.

I agree.

> Will look
> into it as soon as I get done with the contrib/seg patch (ie in an
> hour or so).
>
>

OK. I'll test any patch you post ASAP.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-12-16 04:53:02 Re: Complier warnings on mingw gcc 4.5.0
Previous Message Daniele Varrazzo 2010-12-16 01:51:07 Re: [HACKERS] getting composite types info from libpq