| From: | Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Wolfgang Walther <walther(at)technowledgy(dot)de>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Regression tests fail with musl libc because libpq.so can't be loaded |
| Date: | 2024-03-17 21:05:54 |
| Message-ID: | A9F65857-A286-4EB8-96CE-EA5C1636A05C@thebuild.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
> On Mar 17, 2024, at 13:33, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>
> That seems a little shortsighted. If other libc implementations find it appropriate to have similar macros why should they be different?
It's a philosophical argument against checking for particular libc implementations instead of particular features. I'm not unsympathetic to that argument, but AFAICT there's no clean way of checking for this by examining feature #defines.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2024-03-17 23:20:26 | Re: Regression tests fail with musl libc because libpq.so can't be loaded |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2024-03-17 20:33:40 | Re: Regression tests fail with musl libc because libpq.so can't be loaded |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-03-17 21:46:33 | Re: Built-in CTYPE provider |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2024-03-17 20:56:32 | Re: Popcount optimization using AVX512 |