Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6
Date: 2015-08-05 15:12:34
Message-ID: 16953.1438787554@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> Ok, lets' do it that way then. It seems the easiest way to test for this
> is to use something like

> # "IBM XL C/C++ for AIX, V12.1" miscompiles, for 32-bit, some inline
> # expansions of ginCompareItemPointers() "long long" arithmetic. To
> # take advantage of inlining, build a 64-bit PostgreSQL.
> test $(getconf HARDWARE_BITMODE) == '32' then
> CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -DPG_FORCE_DISABLE_INLINE"
> fi

> in the xlc part of the template?

Actually, much the easiest way to convert what Noah did would be to add

#if defined(__ILP32__) && defined(__IBMC__)
#define PG_FORCE_DISABLE_INLINE
#endif

in src/include/port/aix.h.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2015-08-05 15:19:05 Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2015-08-05 14:59:59 Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention