Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Frankly this patch has significant infelicities. For example, > what is the reason for removing the standard protection > against double inclusion that header files should usually > have from pg_config.h.win32?
I've got to admit, I don't recall that. It may be an oversight - I keep mixing up pg_config.h.win32 and port.h and port/win32.h in my head ;-) You will notice that the other two of those don't have it. But it shouldn't be a problem - AFAIK it's only loaded from c.h, and that one has protection. > I assume that no test was done to see if this broke Cygwin, > despite the fact that if you have a Windows box to test on, > checking that you haven't broken Cygwin should not be too > difficult.. Given the amount of damage I've seen it do, Cygwin is definitly *not* making it onto my development machines. So no, I didn't build it on cygwin. However, I didn't intend for it to break of course - I tried manual checking. Which I obviously didn't do good enough. I'll try to set it up in a VM for testing. > And why do win32 and cygwin now not include at all pg_config_os.h? It's a way to avoid the step to copy win32\port.h in msvc. configure copies it to pg_config_os.h. Since for win32 platforms (unfortunatly, at this point it considers cygwin win32..)that will always be port/win32.h, it explicitly includes that one instead. Tom writes: > Magnus, this was your patch, can you see about fixing the > collateral damage to the Cygwin build? Will do. May be a ocuple of days before I can set up a VM with cygwin, but I'll try to get it done as soon as I can. //Magnus ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq