From: | "Jignesh K(dot) Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)Sun(dot)COM> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Lor <Robert(dot)Lor(at)Sun(dot)COM> |
Subject: | Re: fixing Makefile.shlib for solaris/gcc with -m64 flag |
Date: | 2007-01-17 17:46:14 |
Message-ID: | 45AE60E6.2090307@sun.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I tried that but it didn't work.
Also on Solaris it typically uses the ld in /usr/ccs/bin/ld which uses "-64" as its flag for 64 bit
and if you put LDFLAGS out there it will fail as unrecognized unless gcc parses -64 to -m64.
Putting -m64 in CC will do the workaround but then I guess that's what CFLAGS is for..
Regards,
Jignesh
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jignesh K. Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)Sun(dot)COM> writes:
>> simple if I use -m64 for 64 bit then all end binaries are generated 64-bit and the shared libraries
>> are generated 32-bit and the compilation fails (ONLY ON SOLARIS) since that particular line is only
>> for the condition Solaris AND gcc.
>
>> If I use the COMPILER which is CC + CFLAGS it passes -m64 properly to it and generates shared
>> libraries 64-bit and the compile continues..
>
> Hmm ... I see we're doing it that way already for some other platforms,
> but I can't help thinking it's a kluge. Wouldn't the correct answer be
> that -m64 needs to be in LDFLAGS?
>
> regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2007-01-17 18:50:59 | Re: [PATCHES] pg_standby |
Previous Message | Chuck McDevitt | 2007-01-17 17:44:30 | Re: O_DIRECT support for Windows |