From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Jignesh K(dot) Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)sun(dot)com>, Robert Lor <Robert(dot)Lor(at)sun(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: fixing Makefile.shlib for solaris/gcc with -m64 flag |
Date: | 2007-01-31 18:42:43 |
Message-ID: | 11482.1170268963@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Am Mittwoch, 17. Januar 2007 17:12 schrieb Tom Lane:
>> "Jignesh K. Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)Sun(dot)COM> writes:
>>> simple if I use -m64 for 64 bit then all end binaries are generated
>>> 64-bit and the shared libraries are generated 32-bit and the compilation
>>> fails (ONLY ON SOLARIS) since that particular line is only for the
>>> condition Solaris AND gcc.
>>>
>>> If I use the COMPILER which is CC + CFLAGS it passes -m64 properly to it
>>> and generates shared libraries 64-bit and the compile continues..
>>
>> Hmm ... I see we're doing it that way already for some other platforms,
>> but I can't help thinking it's a kluge. Wouldn't the correct answer be
>> that -m64 needs to be in LDFLAGS?
> The correct answer may be to put -m64 into CC.
Did we conclude that that was a satisfactory solution, or is this still
a live patch proposal?
If -m64 in CC is the right solution, it should probably be mentioned in
FAQ_Solaris.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2007-01-31 18:46:24 | Re: Talks for OSCON? Only 5 days left! |
Previous Message | Robert Bernier | 2007-01-31 18:25:48 | Re: Talks for OSCON? Only 5 days left! |