Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

On 12/14/2011 03:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan writes: + # Disable FP optimizations that cause isinf errors on gcc 4.5+ + PGAC_PROG_CC_CFLAGS_OPT([-fexcess-precision=standard]) Looks sane to me, except "isinf errors" is an awfully narrow reading of the problem. Maybe jus

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

Andrew Dunstan writes: > + # Disable FP optimizations that cause isinf errors on gcc 4.5+ > + PGAC_PROG_CC_CFLAGS_OPT([-fexcess-precision=standard]) Looks sane to me, except "isinf errors" is an awfully narrow reading of the problem. Maybe just say "assorted errors"? Also, do we know

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

On 12/14/2011 11:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote: -ffloat-store is a brute force solution, I think, and would affect old versions of gcc that don't exhibit any problems. I would suggest altering configure to see whether the compiler recognizes -fexcess-precision=standard and adding that to CFLAGS if so.

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

Robert Haas writes: > Uh, wow. That really is pretty insane. How is anyone supposed to > write sensible code around that non-API? Usability seems to be very low on the gcc project's list of goals these days. Personally I think this sort of thing might be fine if it were triggered by -ffast-mat

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > AFAICS it's really impractical to do that.  The code Andrew is having > problems with is essentially > >        double a,b,c; >        ... >        a = b * c; >        if (isinf(a)) throw error; > > and the problem is that the multiplication resu

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

Robert Haas writes: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> -ffloat-store is a brute force solution, I think, and would affect old >> versions of gcc that don't exhibit any problems. I would suggest >> altering configure to see whether the compiler recognizes >> -fexcess-precision

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > -ffloat-store is a brute force solution, I think, and would affect old > versions of gcc that don't exhibit any problems.  I would suggest > altering configure to see whether the compiler recognizes > -fexcess-precision=standard and adding that t

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

Andrew Dunstan writes: >>> Done and done (see >>> ). >>> >> Did you see Kai's update on the ticket? If this is the case, I know >> that we have seen similar bugs with PostGIS and the work-around has >> been

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

On 14/12/11 13:59, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Hmm. Yeah, if I remove -O0 and instead set CFLAGS to -ffloat-store the error goes away. So, would we want to use that just for this file, or for the whole build? Well the latest documentation for gcc gives 2 options: -ffloat-store and -fexcess-precisi

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

On 12/14/2011 04:43 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: On 12/12/11 15:00, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Yeah, fair enough. I'll work on that. If we're talking about adding support for a previously-unsupported Definitely do this (and then file a bug report with the project). I've worked with both Kai and N

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

Am Montag, 12. Dezember 2011, 10:19:46 schrieb Andrew Dunstan: > > On 12/12/2011 09:54 AM, Lars Kanis wrote: > > Am Freitag, 9. Dezember 2011, 15:31:17 schrieb Andrew Dunstan: > >> Yeah, fair enough. I'll work on that. > > Many thanks for reviewing, tweaking and commiting the patch! > > One thing

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

On 12/12/2011 09:54 AM, Lars Kanis wrote: Am Freitag, 9. Dezember 2011, 15:31:17 schrieb Andrew Dunstan: Yeah, fair enough. I'll work on that. Many thanks for reviewing, tweaking and commiting the patch! One thing I wonder about, is this snippet. Is the define really needed now? * The Ming

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

On 12/12/2011 06:43 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: configuration, it seems to me that it would be fine to commit a patch that made everything work, but for the compiler bug. We could refrain from stating that we officially support that configuration until the compiler bug is fixed, or even documen

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

Am Freitag, 9. Dezember 2011, 15:31:17 schrieb Andrew Dunstan: > Yeah, fair enough. I'll work on that. Many thanks for reviewing, tweaking and commiting the patch! One thing I wonder about, is this snippet. Is the define really needed now? * The Mingw64 headers choke if this is already defined -

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

On -10/01/37 20:59, Andrew Dunstan wrote: This is apparently an optimization bug in the compiler. If I turn optimization off (CFLAGS=-O0) it goes away. Ick. So at the moment I'm a bit blocked. I can't really file a bug because the compiler can't currently be used to build postgres, I don't have

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

On 12/09/2011 03:11 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: This is apparently an optimization bug in the compiler. If I turn optimization off (CFLAGS=-O0) it goes away. Ick. So at the moment I'm a bit blocked. I can't really file a bug because the compi

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > This is apparently an optimization bug in the compiler. If I turn > optimization off (CFLAGS=-O0) it goes away. Ick. > > So at the moment I'm a bit blocked. I can't really file a bug because the > compiler can't currently be used to build po

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

Hi, > FYI I've been testing with the attached patch. > We'll need to construct a configure test for HAVE_CRTDEFS_H. Isn't it enough to add the name in configure.in and run autoconf to update configure and autoheaders to update pg_config.h.in? The check of win32 before large file perhaps should a

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

On 12/05/2011 06:27 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: $ cat regression.diffs *** C:/MinGW/msys/1.0/home/pgrunner/bf/root32/HEAD/pgsql/src/test/regress/expected/float8-exp-three-digits-win32.out Fri Nov 25 14:24:49 2011 --- C:/MinGW/msys/1.0/home/pgrunner/bf/root32/HEAD/pgsql/s

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

On 12/05/2011 09:31 AM, NISHIYAMA Tomoaki wrote: Hi, If we are not to use 64 bit file size (and time), #undef stat may be sufficient. The #undef should be before the prototype of pgwin32_safestat because the #define stat _stat64 affect both the function and struct stat. The #undef stat necessi

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

Hi, If we are not to use 64 bit file size (and time), #undef stat may be sufficient. The #undef should be before the prototype of pgwin32_safestat because the #define stat _stat64 affect both the function and struct stat. The #undef stat necessitate #undef fstat as the parameter struct stat * is c

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

On 12/04/2011 06:31 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 09:14, NISHIYAMA Tomoaki wrote: Hi, I found error on #define stat _stat64 occurs on Mingw-w64 (x86_64-w64-mingw32) gcc version 4.7.0 20111203 (experimental) (GCC) The code can be compiled with diff --git a/src/include/p

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 09:14, NISHIYAMA Tomoaki wrote: > Hi, > > I found error on #define stat _stat64 occurs on Mingw-w64 (x86_64-w64-mingw32) > gcc version 4.7.0 20111203 (experimental) (GCC) > > The code can be compiled with > > diff --git a/src/include/port.h b/src/include/port.h > index eceb4

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

Hi, I found error on #define stat _stat64 occurs on Mingw-w64 (x86_64-w64-mingw32) gcc version 4.7.0 20111203 (experimental) (GCC) The code can be compiled with diff --git a/src/include/port.h b/src/include/port.h index eceb4bf..78d5c92 100644 --- a/src/include/port.h +++ b/src/include/port.h @

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

Hi, On 2011/12/04, at 9:45, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> Yes, but there's a deal more work to do here. This whole thing is falling >> over in my build environment (64 bit Windows 7, MinGW/MSys, the machine that >> runs pitta on the buildfarm.) >> >> This is a long way from a done deal. > > In part

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

On 12/03/2011 06:12 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 12/03/2011 09:59 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 15:49, NISHIYAMA Tomoaki wrote: Hi, Have you verified if tihs affects _MSC_VER< 1400? Suddently that branch would care about HAVE_CRTDEFS_H, and I'm not sure if that's so

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

On 12/03/2011 09:59 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 15:49, NISHIYAMA Tomoaki wrote: Hi, Have you verified if tihs affects _MSC_VER< 1400? Suddently that branch would care about HAVE_CRTDEFS_H, and I'm not sure if that's something we need to worry about. I have no MSVC.

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 15:49, NISHIYAMA Tomoaki wrote: > Hi, > >> Have you verified if tihs affects _MSC_VER < 1400? Suddently that >> branch would care about HAVE_CRTDEFS_H, and I'm not sure if that's >> something we need to worry about. > > > I have no MSVC. In that sense it is not verified in f

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

Hi, > Have you verified if tihs affects _MSC_VER < 1400? Suddently that > branch would care about HAVE_CRTDEFS_H, and I'm not sure if that's > something we need to worry about. I have no MSVC. In that sense it is not verified in fact, and I hope those who knows well would kindly comment on it.

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 09:24, NISHIYAMA Tomoaki wrote: > Hi, > > A new patch: > check for the presence of crtdefs.h in configure > > -#if _MSC_VER >= 1400 || defined(WIN64) > +#if _MSC_VER >= 1400 || HAVE_CRTDEFS_H >  #define errcode __msvc_errcode >  #include >  #undef errcode Have you verified

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

Hi, A new patch: check for the presence of crtdefs.h in configure -#if _MSC_VER >= 1400 || defined(WIN64) +#if _MSC_VER >= 1400 || HAVE_CRTDEFS_H #define errcode __msvc_errcode #include #undef errcode Perhaps there is no guarantee that mingw (not -w64) may not have crtdefs.h in the future v

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

On 11/27/2011 09:18 AM, NISHIYAMA Tomoaki wrote: Hi, +/* __MINGW64_VERSION_MAJOR is related to both 32/64 bit gcc compiles by + * mingw-w64, however it gots defined only after Why not use __MINGW32__, which is defined without including any headers? Because it's defined by other than mingw-w6

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

Hi, +/* __MINGW64_VERSION_MAJOR is related to both 32/64 bit gcc compiles by + * mingw-w64, however it gots defined only after Why not use __MINGW32__, which is defined without including any headers? >> >> Because it's defined by other than mingw-w64 compilers. > > I see. That's b

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

Hi, >>> For the win32.h, I really don't understand why _WINSOCKAPI_ was defined >>> before >>> >>> some google suggests that defining _WINSOCKAPI_ before prevents >>> inclusion of winsock.h but that does not have relation to inclusion of >>> and if is included first, it should be ok. >>> >>

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

On 11/24/2011 06:29 AM, Lars Kanis wrote: Isn't it better to check the value of macros itsef rather than checking for system dependent macros that does not directly relate to the issue? specifically for getaddrinfo.c case I think #if EAI_NODATA != EAI_NONAME is a better check than checking for

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

Hi, > The way to build natively with a mingw-w64 compiler is doumented fairly > simply at > : > > To build 64 bit binaries using MinGW, install the 64 bit tool set > from http://mingw-w6

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

On 11/24/2011 04:39 AM, Lars Kanis wrote: > Can you please provide me with some howto on building PG sources with > mingw-w64? For 32/64 bit mingw-v4.6.1 on ubuntu 11.10: apt-get install flex gcc-mingw-w64 ./configure --host=i686-w64-mingw32 --build=x86_64-linux --without-zlib && make a

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

> Isn't it better to check the value of macros itsef rather than checking for > system dependent macros that does not directly relate to the issue? > specifically for getaddrinfo.c case I think > #if EAI_NODATA != EAI_NONAME > is a better check than checking for > #if !defined(__MINGW64_VERSION_MAJ

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

> Can you please provide me with some howto on building PG sources with > mingw-w64? For 32/64 bit mingw-v4.6.1 on ubuntu 11.10: apt-get install flex gcc-mingw-w64 ./configure --host=i686-w64-mingw32 --build=x86_64-linux --without-zlib && make and ./configure --host=x86_64-w64-mingw32 --build=x86

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

Hi, 2011-11-24 09:55 keltezéssel, Pavel Golub írta: > > Can you please provide me with some howto on building PG sources with > mingw-w64? Install Fedora 15 or 16, add this repo file into /etc/yum.repos.d : http://build1.openftd.org/fedora-cross/fedora-cross.repo Then "yum install mingw*". Thi

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

Hello, Lars. You wrote: LK> Hi PostgreSQL hackers, LK> LK> support for Mingw-w64 compiler was added to postgres with commit LK> 91812df. Unfortunately only the 64 bit output is working right LK> now. This issue was already highlighted with initial patch in LK> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgs

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

Hi, Isn't it better to check the value of macros itsef rather than checking for system dependent macros that does not directly relate to the issue? specifically for getaddrinfo.c case I think #if EAI_NODATA != EAI_NONAME is a better check than checking for #if !defined(__MINGW64_VERSION_MAJOR) &&