On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 4:33 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > But I don't get the point about where HEAD is different from v14? > be-secure-openssl.c isn't.
I don't understand what's going on and I don't have the headers to look at, but I was thinking that WIN32_LEAN_AND_MEAN must be causing a different state to be reached that somehow leaves the bad definition of X509_NAME in place. It's confusing though, because you'd hope that'd cause *less* stuff to get defined...
