Re: Compiler warnings with MinGW

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Compiler warnings with MinGW
Date: 2019-09-17 10:00:39
Message-ID: 449f0531-4e70-a72d-6773-9041027f06a4@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2019-09-09 14:24, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 4:58 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz
> <mailto:michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 07, 2019 at 12:11:25AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > I'm not sure exactly what the upstream of mingw is these days, but I
> > think the original issue that led to 811be893 has long been fixed [0],
> > and the other stuff in mingwcompat.c is also no longer relevant
> [1].  I
> > think mingwcompat.c could be removed altogether.  I'm not sure to what
> > extent we need to support 5+ year old mingw versions.
>
> On HEAD I would not be against removing that as this leads to a
> cleanup of our code.  For MSVC, we only support VS 2013~ on HEAD, so
> saying that we don't support MinGW older than what was proposed 5
> years ago sounds sensible.
>
> +1, definitely.

committed

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Yugo Nagata 2019-09-17 10:02:40 Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2019-09-17 09:24:11 Re: block-level incremental backup