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

Re: Curious buildfarm failures (fwd)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Sergey Koposov <koposov(at)ast(dot)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Curious buildfarm failures (fwd)
Date: 2013-01-16 15:37:05
Message-ID: 25326.1358350625@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Sergey Koposov <koposov(at)ast(dot)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk> writes:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Andres Freund wrote:
>> What about switching to -O1 of 11.1?

> I don't know. It is up to -hackers to decide. I think that icc on ia64 
> have shown bugginess time after time. But if you think that buildfarm 
> with icc 11.1 -O1 carry more information than say running gcc, i can 
> still run icc.

I think the reason that this bug doesn't manifest at -O1 is that then
icc doesn't attempt to do any loop unrolling/vectorizing.  So that's a
big chunk of potential optimization bugs we'd be dodging.  It's hard to
say whether that renders the test worthless in comparison with what
people would try to do in production.  Should we recommend that people
not try to use -O2 or higher with icc on IA64?

IMO it's important that we have some icc members in the buildfarm, just
because it's useful to see a different compiler's take on warnings.
We do have some icc-on-mainstream-Intel members, but not many.

Perhaps Sergey should use 10.1, which so far appears to not have so many
bugs.

			regards, tom lane


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Noah MischDate: 2013-01-16 15:56:14
Subject: Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2013-01-16 15:28:49
Subject: Re: json api WIP patch

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