Theoretically one could go into src/test/thread and build/run this
program there. In practice, that hasn't worked since 96bf88d52,
and probably much longer on some platforms (likely including just
the sort of hoary leftovers where this test might be of interest).
While it wouldn't be too hard to repair the breakage, the fact that
nobody has noticed for two years shows that there is zero usefulness
in maintaining this build pathway. Let's get rid of it and decree
that thread_test.c is *only* meant to be built/used in configure.
Given that decision, it makes sense to put thread_test.c under config/
and get rid of src/test/thread altogether, so that's what I did.
In passing, update src/test/README, which had been ignored by some
not-so-recent additions of subdirectories.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/227659.1603041612@sss.pgh.pa.us
Hack things so that our idea of "struct stat" is equivalent to Windows'
struct __stat64, allowing it to have a wide enough st_size field.
Instead of relying on native stat(), use GetFileInformationByHandle().
This avoids a number of issues with Microsoft's multiple and rather
slipshod emulations of stat(). We still need to jump through hoops
to deal with ERROR_DELETE_PENDING, though :-(
Pull the relevant support code out of dirmod.c and put it into
its own file, win32stat.c.
Still TODO: do we need to do something different with lstat(),
rather than treating it identically to stat()?
Juan José Santamaría Flecha, reviewed by Emil Iggland;
based on prior work by Michael Paquier, Sergey Zubkovsky, and others
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1803D792815FC24D871C00D17AE95905CF5099@g01jpexmbkw24
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15858-9572469fd3b73263@postgresql.org
Replace CFLAGS_VECTOR with CFLAGS_UNROLL_LOOPS and CFLAGS_VECTORIZE,
allowing us to distinguish whether we want to apply -funroll-loops,
-ftree-vectorize, or both to a particular source file. Up to now
the only consumer of the symbol has been checksum.c which wants
both, so that there was no need to distinguish; but that's about
to change.
Amit Khandekar, reviewed and edited a little by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJ3gD9evtA_vBo+WMYMyT-u=keHX7-r8p2w7OSRfXf42LTwCZQ@mail.gmail.com
Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut