| From: | Travis P <twp(at)castle(dot)fastmail(dot)fm> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)is(dot)rice(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Buildfarm coverage (was Re: OK, ready for RC1 or Beta6) |
| Date: | 2004-12-03 22:24:59 |
| Message-ID: | 2AC61D55-457A-11D9-AFDE-003065F9DAF8@castle.fastmail.fm |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Dec 3, 2004, at 2:33 PM, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 03:20:48PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> PPC tested pretty often by moi
>> RS6000 isn't this same as PPC?
> This is the IBM Power4 and now Power5 architecture which is
> different from the PowerPC.
Yeah, it's confusing. I believe that Power3 (also known as PowerPC
630), Power4, and Power5 satisfy the requirements of being both Power
architecture and PowerPC architecture processors.
Not all PowerPC processors are Power processors. I believe that all
modern Power processors are PowerPC processors (the Power2 "P2SC" was
the last non-PowerPC Power processor, IIRC).
IBM's Power architecture has architectural features for Server systems
(with a capital S there) that PowerPC for workstations (Apple) and
embedded (Moto/IBM) shouldn't be required to have, and is also IBM's
own solely-owned branding. Hence the differentiation.
That's what I've pieced together anyway.
You'll probably find multi-OS-testing (various versions of AIX, Linux,
MacOS X on PPC and/or PowerPC) much more important than differentiating
particular pieces of hardware in the PPC or RS6000 category, assuming
both 32-bit and 64-bit is covered and also that SMP tests are made.
Does 'make check' test SMP?
-Travis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2004-12-03 22:26:27 | Re: OK, ready for RC1 or Beta6 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-12-03 22:20:13 | Re: OK, ready for RC1 or Beta6 |