> VC++6.0 isn't a very good compiler and it's not very compatible with
> gcc, while Visual Studio 2005 compiler is much more
> compatible and has a better optimizer.
>
> Plus, VC++6.0 had a closed "proprietary" data format for .dsp
> and .dsw files, while the current Visual Studio uses a
> stan
> > You mean they have a tool that parses GNU Makefiles and generate VC
> > project files? Sure, that might be interesting. I've seen I
> think two
> > others, and tried, but they fell over badly because the pg build
> > system was too complicated. But I beleive I'm still allowed
> to loko at
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 09:50:38AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> You mean they have a tool that parses GNU Makefiles and generate VC
> project files? Sure, that might be interesting. I've seen I think two
> others, and tried, but they fell over badly because the pg build system
> was too complica
- Original Message -
From: "Magnus Hagander"
> The target is VC++ 2003 and 2005 ATM, but it should just be a matter of
> a different output format for VC 6.0 I guess.
>
> You will still need things like bison and flex if you want to build off
> cvs, of course - there is no builtin support
You mean they have a tool that parses GNU Makefiles and generate VC
project files? Sure, that might be interesting. I've seen I think two
others, and tried, but they fell over badly because the pg build system
was too complicated. But I beleive I'm still allowed to loko at GPL
stuff and get ideas
> > Yes. There is a patch pending on -patches which fix almost all of
> > these in HEAD. (There are a few tiny things related to perl and NLS
> > that aren't included in it ATM. And I'm just assuming you're seeing
> > the same problems as I was but I didn't base my work off
> vcproject).
> > I
Yes. There is a patch pending on -patches which fix almost all of these
in HEAD. (There are a few tiny things related to perl and NLS that
aren't included in it ATM. And I'm just assuming you're seeing the same
problems as I was but I didn't base my work off vcproject). I'm also
working on a build
> Hi William(uniware), Chuck and Hackers,
>
> I have been interested in doing complete PGSQL
> development in MSVC for a long time now. With reference to
> one of Chuck's mails to
> -hackers-win32 with the same subject, you said that you were
> able to successfully compile PG 8.1 with some
On 5/4/06, Gurjeet Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My main grudge is that if we are supporting almost all flovours of
nixens and compilers (close to 34 according to official website), then
why are we leaving Windows platform alone? This will bring in quite a
lot more developers.
Sorry, but
Hi William(uniware), Chuck and Hackers,
I have been interested in doing complete PGSQL development in MSVC
for a long time now. With reference to one of Chuck's mails to
-hackers-win32 with the same subject, you said that you were able to
successfully compile PG 8.1 with some minor tweaks.
Hi all,
A remark linked to the preceding discussion:
Even if I could find some interest in compiling postgresql with Microsoft’s C
compiler, I understand the technical and organizational difficulties implied by
such a feature. If I want to rebuild from sources postgresql, I have to go the
dev
-Original Message-
From: "Jean-Marc EBER"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 10/09/05 14:26:15
To: "Dave Page"
Cc: "Chuck McDevitt"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"<[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>, "PostgreSQL-development"
Subject:
Dave Page wrote:
Just for fun, I went through PostgreSQL 8.1 and did a complete
build using Microsoft’s C and the latest Visual Studio.
With a few minor tweaks, everything compiled with no errors.
My assumption is that because PostgreSQL is a UNIX/Linux-centric
project (
13 matches
Mail list logo
