Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Call for platforms

From: Patrick Welche <prlw1(at)newn(dot)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk>
To: lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Call for platforms
Date: 2001-04-13 16:48:51
Message-ID: 20010413174851.A2330@quartz.newn.cam.ac.uk (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 01:25:45PM +0000, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > Did we decide that "most NetBSD/i386 users have fpus" in which case Marko's
> > patch should be applied?
> 
> I'm unclear on what y'all mean by "i386 + fpu", especially since NetBSD
> seems to insist on calling every Intel processor a "i386".

History ;-)

> In this case,
> are you suggesting that this patch covers all NetBSD installations on
> every Intel processor from i386 + fpu forward to i486, i586, etc etc?

Yes! It's simply, if the peecee type thing has a fpu (as in the sysctl
machdep.fpu_present returns 1), then libm387.so is used, and you get
differences in the (from memory 44th insignificant figure?) otherwise it
just uses libm.so and you get what is currently correct in resultmap.

Cheers,

Patrick

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-04-13 16:51:59
Subject: Re: Re: JDBC int8 hack
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-04-13 16:46:01
Subject: Re: timeout on lock feature

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-04-13 16:51:59
Subject: Re: Re: JDBC int8 hack
Previous:From: Jason TishlerDate: 2001-04-13 15:15:27
Subject: Re: Re: best Cygwin release/snapshot for Postgresql

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group