Re: [PATCHES] win32.mak patch

2008-01-09 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 02:40:42PM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote: > Hi Magnus. > > From: "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >I see the problem now. In my dev kit, there is no error for using > >_USE_32BIT_TIME_T on Win64. That's why I got caught up in your patch being > >wrong. > > Umm,..

Re: [PATCHES] win32.mak patch

2008-01-09 Thread Dave Page
On 08/01/2008, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 10:02:24AM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote: > A question there though - do we care about the length of time_t on client > platforms, or should we instead just disable the whole check for the > client? AFAICS we don't ex

Re: [PATCHES] win32.mak patch

2008-01-08 Thread Hiroshi Saito
Hi Magnus. From: "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I see the problem now. In my dev kit, there is no error for using _USE_32BIT_TIME_T on Win64. That's why I got caught up in your patch being wrong. Umm,... It is very strange.?_? C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\VC\include\crtd

Re: [PATCHES] win32.mak patch

2008-01-08 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 10:02:24AM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote: > Hi. > > - Original Message - > From: "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:19:54AM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote: > >>Ummm, Sorry...former patch to be disregarded. > >>Although 64bit mak is

Re: [PATCHES] win32.mak patch

2007-12-19 Thread Hiroshi Saito
Hi. - Original Message - From: "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:19:54AM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote: Ummm, Sorry...former patch to be disregarded. Although 64bit mak is experimental, it needs to be compiled. Please apply this. Is this really correc

Re: [PATCHES] win32.mak patch

2007-12-19 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:19:54AM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote: > Ummm, Sorry...former patch to be disregarded. > Although 64bit mak is experimental, it needs to be compiled. > Please apply this. Is this really correct? Fromw hat I can tell you *both* tell us not to check the value *and* set the

Re: [PATCHES] win32.mak patch

2007-12-18 Thread Hiroshi Saito
Ummm, Sorry...former patch to be disregarded. Although 64bit mak is experimental, it needs to be compiled. Please apply this. - Original Message - From: "Hiroshi Saito" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi Magnus. It is a thing left behind.:-( Please apply it. thanks! Regards, Hiroshi Saito

[PATCHES] win32.mak patch

2007-12-18 Thread Hiroshi Saito
Hi Magnus. It is a thing left behind.:-( Please apply it. thanks! Regards, Hiroshi Saito win32mak_patch Description: Binary data ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Re: [PATCHES] win32.mak patch of pg_dump.

2006-12-04 Thread Bruce Momjian
Patch applied and backpatched for 8.2.X. Sorry it didn't make it into 8.2.0. --- Hiroshi Saito wrote: > Hi. > > The module link is insufficient.:-( > > Sorry, japanese message change to xxx --- > link.exe @C:\DOCUME~

[PATCHES] win32.mak patch of pg_dump.

2006-11-29 Thread Hiroshi Saito
Hi. The module link is insufficient.:-( Sorry, japanese message change to xxx --- link.exe @C:\DOCUME~1\hi-saito\LOCALS~1\Temp\nmk03360. common.obj : error LNK2001: xx "_pg_qsort" xx pg_dump_sort.obj : error LNK2001: x "_pg_qsort" x .\Release\pg_dump.exe : fatal error LNK112