From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Should we excise the remnants of borland cc support? |
Date: | 2014-09-20 17:25:01 |
Message-ID: | ecca1caa-8000-4b22-ba76-66b2af102a63@email.android.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On September 20, 2014 4:03:43 PM CEST, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>
>On 09/20/2014 09:24 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> At the moment there's some rememnants of support for borland CC. I
>don't
>> believe it's likely that any of it still works. I can't remember ever
>> seing a buildfarm animal running it either - not surprising it's ~15
>> years since the last release.
>> Since there's both msvc and mingw support for windows builds -
>borlands
>> only platform - I see little point in continuing to support it.
>>
>> The reason I'm wondering is that the atomics patch cargo cults
>forward
>> some stuff specific to borland and I'd rather not do that. And I'd
>> rather be explicit about stopping to do so than slyly doing it.
>>
>
>I thought the Borland stuff was there only so we could build client
>libraries for use with things like Delphi.
That really still relies on a 15 year old compiler?
The stuff I was thinking of - barriers and spinlocks among others - is backend only anyway?
Andres
--
Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2014-09-20 18:16:02 | Re: pgsql: Row-Level Security Policies (RLS) |
Previous Message | Haribabu Kommi | 2014-09-20 16:58:58 | Re: Per table autovacuum vacuum cost limit behaviour strange |