Re: [HACKERS] [patch] build issues on Win32

2014-06-11 Thread Noah Misch
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:51:23AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= d...@des.no writes: -LDFLAGS=-Wl,--allow-multiple-definition +LDFLAGS=${LDFLAGS} -Wl,--allow-multiple-definition That bit seems sane. I've committed that part. Thanks. -- Noah Misch

Re: [HACKERS] [patch] build issues on Win32

2010-03-12 Thread Dag-Erling Smørgrav
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes: Any such platform would already be contending with plpgsql not working, encoding conversion not working, etc etc. It's barely conceivable that a client-only installation would be useful. Uh, I don't understand why it's so hard to conceive that someone might

Re: [HACKERS] [patch] build issues on Win32

2010-03-12 Thread Magnus Hagander
2010/3/12 Dag-Erling Smørgrav d...@des.no: Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes: Any such platform would already be contending with plpgsql not working, encoding conversion not working, etc etc.  It's barely conceivable that a client-only installation would be useful. Uh, I don't understand

Re: [HACKERS] [patch] build issues on Win32

2010-03-11 Thread Greg Stark
2010/3/10 David Fetter da...@fetter.org: --disable-shared, as previously mentioned. Oh.  Well, we don't really support that, and there is a proposal on the table to remove it altogether from the configure script.  I don't think we're going to contort our source code in order to make a

Re: [HACKERS] [patch] build issues on Win32

2010-03-11 Thread Dag-Erling Smørgrav
Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu writes: I would be sad about this. It seems likely there are platforms where it's important. But I'm not really about to spend the effort to fix it up myself and I agree it wouldn't be worth hacking the source to get it to work. I'm a bit puzzled why the symbol

Re: [HACKERS] [patch] build issues on Win32

2010-03-11 Thread Magnus Hagander
2010/3/11 Dag-Erling Smørgrav d...@des.no: Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu writes: I would be sad about this. It seems likely there are platforms where it's important. But I'm not really about to spend the effort to fix it up myself and I agree it wouldn't be worth hacking the source to get it to

Re: [HACKERS] [patch] build issues on Win32

2010-03-11 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: In particular, libpq only exports a fixed subset of symbols on any platform that supports that (which includes Windows). AFAIK, there is no way to make that restriction on static libraries, at least not on Windows. Right, and not anyplace else

Re: [HACKERS] [patch] build issues on Win32

2010-03-11 Thread Tom Lane
Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu writes: 2010/3/10 David Fetter da...@fetter.org: --disable-shared, as previously mentioned. +1 for de-supporting this option. I would be sad about this. It seems likely there are platforms where it's important. Any such platform would already be contending with

Re: [HACKERS] [patch] build issues on Win32

2010-03-11 Thread Greg Stark
2010/3/11 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us: Now libpq doesn't often have critical security bugs filed against it, but it certainly has bugs.  Do you really want to have to remember to rebuild every piece of dependent software when you update it? I absolutely agree that linking statically is a

Re: [HACKERS] [patch] build issues on Win32

2010-03-11 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Now libpq doesn't often have critical security bugs filed against it, but it certainly has bugs. Do you really want to have to remember to rebuild every piece of dependent software when you update it? The OP's case apparently involves multiple independent libraries that he

Re: [HACKERS] [patch] build issues on Win32

2010-03-11 Thread Tom Lane
Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu writes: The two (separate) goals which are useful are 1) Provide a library others can link against to produce a binary which has no run-time dependency on your library. In this case the only library they might want to link against would be libpq. The encoding

Re: [HACKERS] [patch] build issues on Win32

2010-03-11 Thread Steve Atkins
On Mar 11, 2010, at 1:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote: BTW, I'm not sure I buy the argument that commercial software requires static linking. Red Hat would be as interested in that market as anybody, and as I said, they don't think it's necessary to ship static libraries (with a *very* short list

Re: [HACKERS] [patch] build issues on Win32

2010-03-11 Thread David Fetter
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 01:34:34PM -0800, Steve Atkins wrote: On Mar 11, 2010, at 1:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote: BTW, I'm not sure I buy the argument that commercial software requires static linking. Red Hat would be as interested in that market as anybody, and as I said, they don't think

[HACKERS] [patch] build issues on Win32

2010-03-10 Thread Dag-Erling Smørgrav
I've run across a couple of stumbling blocks when building on Win32 (specifically, XP + MinGW): 1. PostgreSQL's private versions of inet_aton etc. can conflict with similar functions in other libraries (in my case, PostgreSQL's inet_aton conflicts with libavformat's). 2. On Win32,

Re: [HACKERS] [patch] build issues on Win32

2010-03-10 Thread Tom Lane
=?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= d...@des.no writes: I've run across a couple of stumbling blocks when building on Win32 (specifically, XP + MinGW): 1. PostgreSQL's private versions of inet_aton etc. can conflict with similar functions in other libraries (in my case, PostgreSQL's

Re: [HACKERS] [patch] build issues on Win32

2010-03-10 Thread Dag-Erling Smørgrav
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes: Dag-Erling Smørgrav d...@des.no writes: 1. PostgreSQL's private versions of inet_aton etc. can conflict with similar functions in other libraries (in my case, PostgreSQL's inet_aton conflicts with libavformat's). So what? We don't link with

Re: [HACKERS] [patch] build issues on Win32

2010-03-10 Thread Magnus Hagander
2010/3/10 Dag-Erling Smørgrav d...@des.no: Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes: Dag-Erling Smørgrav d...@des.no writes:  1. PostgreSQL's private versions of inet_aton etc. can conflict with     similar functions in other libraries (in my case, PostgreSQL's     inet_aton conflicts with

Re: [HACKERS] [patch] build issues on Win32

2010-03-10 Thread Tom Lane
=?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= d...@des.no writes: Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes: Dag-Erling Smørgrav d...@des.no writes: 1. PostgreSQL's private versions of inet_aton etc. can conflict with similar functions in other libraries (in my case, PostgreSQL's inet_aton conflicts with

Re: [HACKERS] [patch] build issues on Win32

2010-03-10 Thread Dag-Erling Smørgrav
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: Dag-Erling Smørgrav d...@des.no writes: Your users might need to link with both.  I'm working on an application that generates animations (specifically, animated weather forecasts) based on data retrieved from a PostgreSQL database. This shows

Re: [HACKERS] [patch] build issues on Win32

2010-03-10 Thread Dag-Erling Smørgrav
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes: We don't support linking the backend into other applications. libpq uses this as well. If you're complaining about libpq, the right thing for that is to use a platform that can suppress non-exported symbols from a shared library. Maybe what we need to do

Re: [HACKERS] [patch] build issues on Win32

2010-03-10 Thread Tom Lane
=?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= d...@des.no writes: Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: But the fix seems wrong. If you are using a static libpq, the library should be added whenever you link that library into your client application. Not for every single EXE and DLL that postgres

Re: [HACKERS] [patch] build issues on Win32

2010-03-10 Thread Dag-Erling Smørgrav
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes: Dag-Erling Smørgrav d...@des.no writes: Without this patch, pg_ctl fails to build... It builds for everybody else (and we do have multiple mingw machines in the buildfarm, so it's not like this doesn't get tested). I think there is some other factor

Re: [HACKERS] [patch] build issues on Win32

2010-03-10 Thread Tom Lane
=?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= d...@des.no writes: Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes: It builds for everybody else (and we do have multiple mingw machines in the buildfarm, so it's not like this doesn't get tested). I think there is some other factor involved here, and you need to

Re: [HACKERS] [patch] build issues on Win32

2010-03-10 Thread David Fetter
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 01:28:55PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= d...@des.no writes: Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes: It builds for everybody else (and we do have multiple mingw machines in the buildfarm, so it's not like this doesn't get tested). I think