From: | Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re : Solaris Performance - 64 bit puzzle |
Date: | 2002-04-30 18:38:28 |
Message-ID: | 20020430143828.D20164@mail.libertyrms.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Sorry to reply to myself, but this might be useful for the archive.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 11:55:53AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> But now I'm wondering, is there anyone who knows of troubles with the
> profiling of programs compiled with -pg under gcc 3.0.3 64 bit on
> Solaris 7? Here's my configure line:
You can't use the -pg cflag without -mcmodel=medlow, because gcc (at
least in its 64 bit incarnation on Solaris) apparently can't produce
binaries that way: only the medlow memory model is supported for
profiling. Unhappily, this appears to cause conflicting libraries to
be invoked (I _think_ that's what's going on, anyway). I think this
means I can't build a 64-bit system with gcc for profiling. I might
be wrong (I'm sort of puzzling this out from two or three rather
cryptic entries in some man pages; and as anyone who's ever seen my
posts will attest, I'm not that bright anyway, so I may have
misunderstood something). In any case, I can't offer a definite
answer about the 64-bit qsort for now. If I have a chance to
come back to it, and discover anything, I'll post it here.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> M6K 3E3
+1 416 646 3304 x110
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Roberto Andrade Fonseca | 2002-04-30 18:49:39 | Re: Bookbiz database |
Previous Message | Jason Earl | 2002-04-30 16:58:36 | Re: pgdump 7.2 on pg-7.1 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2002-04-30 18:41:47 | Re: Schemas: status report, call for developers |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-30 18:23:45 | Re: Schemas: status report, call for developers |