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

Re: fixing Makefile.shlib for solaris/gcc with -m64 flag

From: "Jignesh K(dot) Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)Sun(dot)COM>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Lor <Robert(dot)Lor(at)Sun(dot)COM>
Subject: Re: fixing Makefile.shlib for solaris/gcc with -m64 flag
Date: 2007-02-01 09:54:24
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
I dont think we solved this.. But I think the way to put -m64 should be same as in Linux and Solaris 
and not different.


Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> Am Mittwoch, 17. Januar 2007 17:12 schrieb Tom Lane:
>>> "Jignesh K. Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)Sun(dot)COM> writes:
>>>> simple if I use -m64 for 64 bit then all end binaries are generated
>>>> 64-bit and the shared libraries are generated 32-bit and the compilation
>>>> fails (ONLY ON SOLARIS) since that particular line is only for the
>>>> condition Solaris AND gcc.
>>>> If I use the COMPILER which is CC + CFLAGS it passes -m64 properly to it
>>>> and generates shared libraries 64-bit and the compile continues..
>>> Hmm ... I see we're doing it that way already for some other platforms,
>>> but I can't help thinking it's a kluge.  Wouldn't the correct answer be
>>> that -m64 needs to be in LDFLAGS?
>> The correct answer may be to put -m64 into CC.
> Did we conclude that that was a satisfactory solution, or is this still
> a live patch proposal?
> If -m64 in CC is the right solution, it should probably be mentioned in
> FAQ_Solaris.
> 			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: ITAGAKI TakahiroDate: 2007-02-01 10:43:45
Subject: Estimation error in n_dead_tuples
Previous:From: imadDate: 2007-02-01 09:15:19
Subject: Re: PL/pgSQL RENAME functionality in TODOs

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group