Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

On 12/31/2011 06:10 PM, Brar Piening wrote: Brar Piening wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: Can you narrow down exactly what in that commit broke VS 2010? Are there any compiler warnings? I was able to nail down the problem. In the absence of reaction, to keep my promise, I'm sending the attac

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

On 01/02/2012 09:51 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Jan 2, 2012 12:02 AM, "Andrew Dunstan" > wrote: > > > > On 12/31/2011 06:10 PM, Brar Piening wrote: >> >> Brar Piening wrote: >>> >>> Andrew Dunstan wrote: Can you narrow down exactly what in that commit

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

On Jan 2, 2012 12:02 AM, "Andrew Dunstan" wrote: > > > > On 12/31/2011 06:10 PM, Brar Piening wrote: >> >> Brar Piening wrote: >>> >>> Andrew Dunstan wrote: Can you narrow down exactly what in that commit broke VS 2010? Are there any compiler warnings? >>> >>> >>> I was able to nail down

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

On 12/31/2011 06:10 PM, Brar Piening wrote: Brar Piening wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: Can you narrow down exactly what in that commit broke VS 2010? Are there any compiler warnings? I was able to nail down the problem. In the absence of reaction, to keep my promise, I'm sending the attac

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

Andrew Dunstan wrote: Can you narrow down exactly what in that commit broke VS 2010? Are there any compiler warnings? I was able to nail down the problem. Running the regression tests (vcregress check) gives the following messages: == creating temporary installation===

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 15:08, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 12/28/2011 08:43 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> >> On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 14:38, Andrew Dunstan  wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 12/27/2011 11:09 PM, Brar Piening wrote: Brar Piening wrote: > > I have to admit that it's currentl

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

On 12/28/2011 08:43 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 14:38, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 12/27/2011 11:09 PM, Brar Piening wrote: Brar Piening wrote: I have to admit that it's currently broken (it builds but fails during regression tests becuse it can't connect) when building

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 14:38, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 12/27/2011 11:09 PM, Brar Piening wrote: >> >> Brar Piening wrote: >>> >>> I have to admit that it's currently broken (it builds but fails during >>> regression tests becuse it can't connect) when building with Visual Studio >>> 2010 or

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

On 12/27/2011 11:09 PM, Brar Piening wrote: Brar Piening wrote: I have to admit that it's currently broken (it builds but fails during regression tests becuse it can't connect) when building with Visual Studio 2010 or Windows SDK 7.1 because of commit 1a0c76c32fe470142d3663dd84ac960d75a4e8db

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 05:09, Brar Piening wrote: > Brar Piening wrote: >> >> I have to admit that it's currently broken (it builds but fails during >> regression tests becuse it can't connect) when building with Visual Studio >> 2010 or Windows SDK 7.1 because of commit >> 1a0c76c32fe470142d3663

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

Brar Piening wrote: I have to admit that it's currently broken (it builds but fails during regression tests becuse it can't connect) when building with Visual Studio 2010 or Windows SDK 7.1 because of commit 1a0c76c32fe470142d3663dd84ac960d75a4e8db (Enable compiling with the mingw-w64 32 bit c

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

On 12/10/2011 12:58 PM, Brar Piening wrote: I'm currently trying to find some time window in my before chrismas schedule but it seems like I can't guarantee anything. Anyhow I'll try to make it happen within "this year". That's fair, and Andrew or something else may get an itch to just plow

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

Andrew Dunstan wrote: In the absence of reaction to this I've marked the patch as "waiting on author", but if/when I have time I'll work on rearranging things as above. Sorry for my non-reaction. I'm currently trying to find some time window in my before chrismas schedule but it seems like

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

On 12/04/2011 12:44 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 11/29/2011 04:32 PM, Brar Piening wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: Some minor nitpicks: Do we really need to create all those VSProject.pm and VSSolution.pm files? They are all always included anyway. Why not just stash all the packag

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

On 11/29/2011 04:32 PM, Brar Piening wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: Some minor nitpicks: Do we really need to create all those VSProject.pm and VSSolution.pm files? They are all always included anyway. Why not just stash all the packages in Solution.pm and Project.pm? We certainly

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

Magnus Hagander wrote: I'd vote for whatever matches the "general perl pest practices" at this time. I didn't kow the "perl pest practices" until now but as the PostgreSQL community is more into C I think I know what you mean ;-) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postg

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 01:06, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 11/29/2011 04:32 PM, Brar Piening wrote: >> >> Andrew Dunstan wrote: >>> >>> Some minor nitpicks: >>> >>> Do we really need to create all those VSProject.pm and >>> VSSolution.pm files? They are all always included anyway. Why no

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

On 11/29/2011 04:32 PM, Brar Piening wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: Some minor nitpicks: Do we really need to create all those VSProject.pm and VSSolution.pm files? They are all always included anyway. Why not just stash all the packages in Solution.pm and Project.pm? We certainly

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

On 11/29/2011 10:01 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: I don't have a VS2010 machine available to test it on unfortunately. I'll see what I can do about arranging one, at least temporarily. Meanwhile I'll test it on my VS2005 and VS2008 machines to make sure it doesn't break anything. I can conf

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

Andrew Dunstan wrote: Some minor nitpicks: Do we really need to create all those VSProject.pm and VSSolution.pm files? They are all always included anyway. Why not just stash all the packages in Solution.pm and Project.pm? We certainly don't *need* them. Having different files separ

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

On 09/28/2011 03:53 PM, Brar Piening wrote: Brar Piening wrote: The attached patch includes documentation changes and excludes my versions of pgbison.pl and pgflex.pl which have been replaced by Andrews' versions that are already commited. Building current head today I noticed that the pa

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

Brar Piening wrote: The attached patch includes documentation changes and excludes my versions of pgbison.pl and pgflex.pl which have been replaced by Andrews' versions that are already commited. Building current head today I noticed that the patch doesn't apply cleanly anymore. Attached

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

---- Original Message  ---- >>>> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches >>>> From: Andrew Dunstan >>>> To: Brar Piening >>>> Date: 06.07.2011 22:58 >>>> >>>>>> I'll remove my versions from the p

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

On 08/10/2011 09:21 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: I am no perl expert, but I see we are using this already today - in code written by you in one case ;) I'd assume it was just following the same standard... If the other way is the way to do it

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

On 08/10/2011 09:03 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 03:25, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 07/06/2011 08:26 PM, Brar Piening wrote: Original Message Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches From: Andrew Dunstan To: Brar Piening Date

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > I am no perl expert, but I see we are using this already today - in > code written by you in one case ;) I'd assume it was just following > the same standard... If the other way is the way to do it today, I see > no reason not to change it

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 03:25, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 07/06/2011 08:26 PM, Brar Piening wrote: >> >> Original Message  -------- >> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches >> From: Andrew Dunstan >> To: Brar Piening >&g

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

On 07/06/2011 08:26 PM, Brar Piening wrote: Original Message Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches From: Andrew Dunstan To: Brar Piening Date: 06.07.2011 22:58 I'll remove my versions from the patch (v9 probably) if those files get commited.

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 20:46, Brar Piening wrote: > Sorry for the late response - I've been on a wedding this weekend. >> >> Something is strange here. Did you run perltidy with the exact >> parameters documented in the README file? > > Yes - I usually even copy paste it from the README as "perlt

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

Original Message Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches From: Magnus Hagander To: Brar Piening Date: 08.07.2011 11:38 Sorry for the late response - I've been on a wedding this weekend. Something is strange here. Did you run perltidy with the

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 02:26, Brar Piening wrote: > Original Message   > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches > From: Andrew Dunstan > To: Brar Piening > Date: 06.07.2011 22:58 > >>> I'll remove my versions from the patch

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

Original Message Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches From: Craig Ringer To: Brar Piening Date: 07.07.2011 16:44 Frankly, I suggest leaving these tests for the buildfarm to sort out. I don't see any sign of build process issues; they all build

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

On 7/07/2011 8:26 AM, Brar Piening wrote: As before "perltidy_before.patch" has to be applied first and "VS2010v9.patch" second. OK, I've gone through builds with way too many versions of the Windows SDK and have test results to report. The short version: please commit so I never, ever, ever

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

On 07/06/2011 04:41 PM, Brar Piening wrote: I certainly could. But as those files are Andrew's work which isn't really related to VS2010 build and could as well be commited seperately I don't want to take credit for it. I'll remove my versions from the patch (v9 probably) if those files get c

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

Original Message Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches From: Craig Ringer To: Brar Piening Date: 06.07.2011 14:56 It turns out that VS2010v8.patch is also attached to the same message. Not that you'd know it from the ... interesting ... way the w

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

On 6/07/2011 2:15 AM, Brar Piening wrote: I've replied on-list see: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-07/msg00066.php Ah, sorry I missed that. I generally can't keep up with -hackers and have to rely on being cc'd. The patch (VS2010v7.patch) seems to mix significant changes

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

Original Message Subject: Review of VS 2010 support patches From: Craig Ringer To: PG Hackers , Brar Piening Date: 05.07.2011 14:25 I haven't had any reply to my email to Brar, so there are a few details (like whether x64 builds were tested and how x64 required libraries we