| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com |
| Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Brar Piening <brar(at)gmx(dot)de>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Visual Studio 2012 RC |
| Date: | 2013-01-27 21:25:42 |
| Message-ID: | 51059B56.2030504@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/27/2013 02:48 PM, james wrote:
>> Anyway, this is getting way off track. The point is that the MS SDKs and
>> compilers are a bit of a mess and that MinGW support is useful because
>> we can't rely on them continuing to offer free SDKs and compilers in
>> future.
>
> Well, more compilers are always useful, but complaining that Microsoft
> might withdraw their working compilers smacks of 'what if?' paranoia.
> What if mingw support for Win64 was (sometimes/often/always/still) a
> bit rubbish? Oh wait ...
>
On the contrary, only a few months ago there was a far from groundless
fear that Microsoft would do just that. Following considerable outcry
they changed their mind. But this is definitely not just paranoia. As
for w64 support, the mingw-64 project exists more or less explicitly to
produce 64 bit compilers, including those hosted on mingw/msys.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-01-27 21:29:56 | Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2013-01-27 21:11:09 | vacuuming template0 |