(2014/02/05 14:52), Tom Lane wrote: > Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On 02/05/2014 06:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I had been okay with the manual PGDLLIMPORT-sprinkling approach >>> (not happy with it, of course, but prepared to tolerate it) as long >>> as I believed the buildfarm would reliably tell us of the need for >>> it. That assumption has now been conclusively disproven, though. > >> I'm kind of horrified that the dynamic linker doesn't throw its toys >> when it sees this. > > Indeed :-(. > > The truly strange part of this is that it seems that the one Windows > buildfarm member that's telling the truth (or most nearly so, anyway) > is narwhal, which appears to have the oldest and cruftiest toolchain > of the lot. I'd really like to come out the other end of this > investigation with a clear understanding of why the newer toolchains > are failing to report a link problem, and yet not building working > executables.
Is it a linkage error? Could you please show me the error message concretely? regards, Hiroshi Inoue -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
