From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Luis Amigo <lamigo(at)atc(dot)unican(dot)es>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: installing 7.2b3 on IRIX 6.5.13 |
Date: | 2001-11-27 15:36:04 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0111271610310.791-100000@peter.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes:
> It's not clear to me whether we should change template/irix5 or not.
> It sounds like gcc is misinstalled on your machine, but that doesn't
> necessarily mean that no one is using gcc successfully on IRIX, so
> I don't want to force CC=cc.
One of these days I'm going to write this down somewhere: GCC + Irix +
PostgreSQL does not work -- until proven otherwise and/or GCC is fixed.
(The reason that the assembly fails is unrelated to this bug; it's just
that no one ever bothered to work on it because there's no use anyway.)
I was going to suggest myself someday that we force CC=cc, but it should
be done in configure.in (near line 274) and not in the template file.
> Possibly this would make sense:
>
> if test "$GCC" = yes ; then
> CFLAGS="-O2"
> else
> CFLAGS="-n32 -O2 -r12000"
> LDFLAGS="-n32 -O2 -r12000"
> fi
We've had successful reports for Irix in the past, so I don't think the -n
and -r flags are strictly necessary -- at least I'd like to see more
information regarding them. What makes -n32 and -r12000 better than, say,
-n64 and -r6000?
The -O2 seems okay. Its lack is probably a remnant from the old fmgr
times.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-27 15:38:10 | Re: installing 7.2b3 on IRIX 6.5.13 |
Previous Message | Stefan Holzheu | 2001-11-27 13:51:31 | Transaction-log |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-27 15:38:10 | Re: installing 7.2b3 on IRIX 6.5.13 |
Previous Message | bpalmer | 2001-11-27 12:41:53 | Re: OpenBSD results for 7.2b3 |