On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 18:35, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > > > On 01/30/2011 11:52 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 16:47, Andrew Dunstan<and...@dunslane.net> wrote: >>> >>> The attached patch allows building a 64 bit Windows Postgres using the >>> mingw64 compiler from >>> >>> <http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw-w64/files/Toolchains%20targetting%20Win64/Automated%20Builds/>. >>> It works both as a native compiler and for cross-compiling (which I >>> tested >>> on 32 bit Windows, but could in theory be done on any of the supported >>> hosts, including Linux, Darwin and Cygwin). >>> >>> The required changes are very modest, and I'd like to commit this so we >>> can >>> get some buildfarm coverage (I don't have an available 64 bit Windows >>> machine for running a buildfarm member right now. but maybe someone else >>> does.) >>> >>> There will be some small consequent documentation changes. >> >> +#ifndef _WIN32_WINNT >> #define _WIN32_WINNT 0x0501 >> +#endif >> >> That seems unsafe in general. What if _WIN32_WINNT is already defined, >> but to something lower than 0x0501?Might be better to do: >> #ifdef _WIN32_WINNT >> #undef _WIN32_WINNT >> #endif > > > Right now we define it to 0x0501 unconditionally, which causes warnings on > practically every file, because the mingw64 headers define it themselves to > 0x0502. We don't really want to redefine it down ourselves, do we? > > > Maybe we should do the undefine only if it's lower than 0x0501.
Yeah, that seems like the correct thing to do. >> +#ifndef WIN64 >> #define _WINSOCKAPI_ >> >> Did you verify that that's not needed on win64-msvc? (my VM isn't >> booted right now, so I didn't actually test it) > > > No, I don't have such a setup, so testing that would be a significant burden > to me. But the buildfarm does (hamerkop). Part of the reason for wanting to > get this onto the buildfarm is to make sure it doesn't upset anything else. > After all that's a major reason for the buildfarm's existence in the first > place. Well, I'd rather assume that it's there for a reason on the msvc builds before, so I'd rather have the patch not change the msvc behavior in the first place. Shouldn't be too hard to do? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
