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

Re: [HACKERS] Reorganization of spinlock defines

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,"Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>,PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>,PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Reorganization of spinlock defines
Date: 2003-09-12 04:06:49
Message-ID: 6487.1063339609@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org> writes:
> I've already sent a whine-a-gram to the compiler guys at SCO.

Prolly you thought of this already, but: getting them to *add*
an implicit #define of __i386__ should be plenty easy compared
to getting them to *remove* the one for i386.  And while I think
they should remove the latter, the immediate problem would be
solved as soon as they add the former.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Marc G. FournierDate: 2003-09-12 04:07:14
Subject: Re: Reorganization of spinlock defines
Previous:From: Larry RosenmanDate: 2003-09-12 04:02:02
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Reorganization of spinlock defines

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Marc G. FournierDate: 2003-09-12 04:07:14
Subject: Re: Reorganization of spinlock defines
Previous:From: Larry RosenmanDate: 2003-09-12 04:02:02
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Reorganization of spinlock defines

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