| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Yuriy Zhuravlev <stalkerg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hartmut Holzgraefe <hartmut(dot)holzgraefe(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms |
| Date: | 2018-05-03 00:52:00 |
| Message-ID: | 20180503005200.htvxyvtxcdecpf4z@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-05-03 09:42:49 +0900, Yuriy Zhuravlev wrote:
> 2018-05-03 9:32 GMT+09:00 Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>:
> > Given that you don't have feature parity this just seems like trolling.
> >
>
> I have. I have some lacks with .po generation and documentation but all!
> other features same, I even can run tap tests.
> Look into my task issue list
> https://github.com/stalkerg/postgres_cmake/issues it's can increase number
> of lines maximum on 10%.
You detect like a third of the things that the old configure
detected. Most of the comments of converted tests are missing. The
thread safety check definitely aren't comparable. The int128 type checks
aren't comparable. No LLVM detection. The atomics check don't guard
against compilers that allow to reference undefined functions at compile
time. That's like a 60s scan of what you have. Sorry, but comparing
lines at that state is just bullshit.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yuriy Zhuravlev | 2018-05-03 01:49:43 | Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-05-03 00:44:22 | Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled? |