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

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Mark Cave-Ayland <mark(dot)cave-ayland(at)siriusit(dot)co(dot)uk>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64
Date: 2011-12-14 20:34:23
Message-ID: 4EE9084F.4010002@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 12/14/2011 03:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan<andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> 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 that
> gcc 4.5 poses the issue? I'm only aware of reports for 4.6 and 4.7.

It looked to me like this switch landed in gcc 4.5 because they were
getting problems like this. See
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/msg00105.html>

>> I guess we should backpatch it?
> +1. Back branches will see these same problems as soon as anybody
> tries to compile them with latest-n-greatest gcc.
>
>

Yeah. Will do.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2011-12-14 20:52:08 Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-12-14 20:15:15 Re: SP-GiST versus index-only scans