| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Douglas Carmichael <dcarmich(at)chef(dot)ourservers(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [PATCHES] Patch for PostgreSQL 7.0.3 to compile on Tru64 UNIX v5.0A with Compaq C T6.4-212 (dtk) |
| Date: | 2001-04-16 16:47:40 |
| Message-ID: | 11922.987439660@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
> cc -std -O4 -Olimit 2000 -I../../../../src/include -c -o float.o float.c
> cc: Error: float.c, line 251: In this statement, the libraries on this
> platform do not yet support compile-time evaluation of the constant
> expression "0.0/0.0". (constfoldns)
> Where does the "-O4" come from? That level of optimization probably is
> forcing the compile-time constant folding, which is causing trouble.
Looks like it's coming from src/template/osf. If Douglas can confirm
that a lower -O level makes the compiler complaint go away, then we need
to change that template.
BTW, the other arm of the osf template looks pretty bogus too: isn't it
forcing no optimizations for gcc? I'd have expected CFLAGS=-O2 for gcc.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2001-04-16 17:24:19 | Re: 7.1 on 7.1 |
| Previous Message | matthew green | 2001-04-16 16:15:56 | re: NetBSD "Bad address" failure (was Re: Third call for platform testing) |