Re: Should we excise the remnants of borland cc support?

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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