On 13 Oct. 2016 05:28, "Tom Lane" <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Albe Laurenz <laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at> writes:
> >> Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> I'm okay with adding PGDLLEXPORT to the extern, but we should update
> >>> that comment to note that it's not necessary with any of our standard
> >>> Windows build processes. (For that matter, the comment fails to
> >>> why this macro is providing an extern for the base function at all...)
> >> Here is a patch for that, including an attempt to improve the comment.
> > Pushed with some further twiddling of the comment.
> Well, the buildfarm doesn't like that even a little bit. It seems that
> the MSVC compiler does not like seeing both "extern Datum foo(...)" and
> "extern PGDLLEXPORT Datum foo(...)", so anything that had an extern in
> a .h file is failing. There is also quite a bit of phase-of-the-moon
> behavior in here, because in some cases some functions are raising errors
> and others that look entirely the same are not.
Pretty sure we discussed and did exactly this before around 9.4. Will check
Yeah. Here's the thread.
I think the discussion last time came down to you and I disagreeing about
Microsoft droppings too ;)