| From: | "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Keith Parks <emkxp01(at)mtcc(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] int8 type -- call for porting results! |
| Date: | 1998-08-16 14:06:33 |
| Message-ID: | 35D6E769.9E266212@alumni.caltech.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Things were broken for int8 on SPARC/Linux, showing a regression test
> failure.
>
> Since making your suggested change (removing "&& defined(i386)") I'm
> getting a "pass" on the int8 tests.
>
> The platform is SPARCstation IPX, Redhat 4.2.
> PostgreSQL (latest CVS).
> GCC 2.7.2.1.
OK, great. Do you have a suggestion for a pre-defined compiler value I
can check? Is "sparc" or "__sparc" defined? On my machine I can run
gcc -v
which tells me where to look for specs, and in that file is a line of
"predefines". I think that there is another way to check this, but I've
forgotten how.
I wonder if we can try enabling int8's for all gcc compilers? The only
machines that might break on are other 64-bit machines (like some
SGI's?).
- Tom
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-08-16 14:31:46 | Re: [HACKERS] int8 type -- call for porting results! |
| Previous Message | Keith Parks | 1998-08-16 12:22:53 | Re: [HACKERS] int8 type -- call for porting results! |