Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> moa, which is claimed on the buildfarm dashboard to be using gcc but is
>> actually using cc, hits the spinlock problem in 8.0 and 8.1 and the
>> BYTE_ORDER problem in 8.2.
> Per above, moa is configured with --disable-spinlocks for 8.1/8.0. Is
> something else broken in the configure code - or am I missing the
> point of --disable-spinlocks?
Hum ... you are right, there is something else broken there. It looks
like, on platforms where we have an out-of-line assembler file, we
attempt to assemble it whether or not --disable-spinlocks is selected
(because configure sets TAS anyway).
This is clearly something we should fix, but I've got mixed feelings
about whether to back-patch it all the way, in view of the fact that
nobody complained before. If you would like to keep running moa with
--disable-spinlocks in the old branches, I'll do it. However, it looks
like what you did amounts to --disable-spinlocks in *all* branches,
which is definitely not what we want to test. If you can fix the
buildfarm configuration so that that switch is really applied
selectively to just pre-8.2 branches, then I think it'd be good to make
that happen. If you can't, I think it'd be best to just drop the switch
and forget about pre-8.2 on moa.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Dave Page||Date: 2010-08-31 14:06:35|
|Subject: Re: huia and moa versus old PG branches|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-08-31 13:51:31|
|Subject: Re: huia and moa versus old PG branches |