Re: Do we still need PowerPC-specific timestamp_is_current/epoch?

From: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
Cc: lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Do we still need PowerPC-specific timestamp_is_current/epoch?
Date: 2001-03-11 03:30:10
Message-ID: 20010311123010W.t-ishii@sra.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> At the end of backend/utils/adt/datetime.c, there is some fairly ugly
> code that is conditionally compiled on
>
> #if defined(linux) && defined(__powerpc__)
>
> Do we still need this? The standard versions of TIMESTAMP_IS_CURRENT
> and TIMESTAMP_IS_EPOCH appear to work just fine on my Powerbook G3
> running Linux 2.2.18 (LinuxPPC 2000 Q4 distro).
>
> I see from the CVS logs that Tatsuo originally introduced this code
> on 1997/07/29 (at the time it lived in dt.c and was called
> datetime_is_current & datetime_is_epoch). I suppose that it must have
> been meant to work around some bug in old versions of gcc for PPC.

Yes.

> But it seems to me to be a net decrease in portability --- it's assuming
> that the symbolic constants DBL_MIN and -DBL_MIN will produce particular
> bit patterns --- so I'd like to remove it unless someone knows of a
> recent Linux/PPC release that still needs it.

Let me check if my Linux/PPC still needs the workaround.
BTW, what about MkLinux? Anybody tried recent DR5 release?
--
Tatsuo Ishii

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vadim Mikheev 2001-03-11 07:24:19 Re: AW: AW: AW: WAL does not recover gracefully from ou t-of -dis k-sp ace
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-03-11 02:29:55 Do we still need PowerPC-specific timestamp_is_current/epoch?