On 18.09.25 17:15, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 3:03 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
>> Here is some relevant documentation that suggests that this is the
>> correct approach:
>>
>> https://github.com/mingw-w64/mingw-w64/blob/master/mingw-w64-headers/crt/_mingw.h.in#L476
>>
>> This also says that the default is 0 anyway, so it's not clear whether
>> this is even useful anymore. The commit that introduced this (commit
>> b787c554c26) is from 2022, so it's not that long ago. (It appears to be
>> some old mingw vs. new mingw issue?)
>
> So if MinGW already defines its own version of this symbol [1], how
> does this work in practice? Would it actually do anything if we
> assigned -1 instead?
Yes, if you do that, the pg_amcheck test 'schema exclusion pattern
overrides all inclusion patterns' fails, which has an entirely plausible
causality.
As to how it works, I'm not sure, but I suppose the linker somehow
arranges the initializations in the right order.
