| From: | Yuriy Zhuravlev <stalkerg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| 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 01:49:43 |
| Message-ID: | CANiD2e9T1s=tOzE6=HEXpCQwODZQmiHJwifMG3iuNxKHkU+knw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> Sorry, but comparing lines at that state is just bullshit.
I totally disagree, proportions will be same in any case.
Most of the comments of converted tests are missing.
>
Add 100-500 lines? ok.
You detect like a third of the things that the old configure
> detected.
>
I tried to use CMake way when it exists but for some other things, I
porting checking from old autoconf system.
The
> thread safety check definitely aren't comparable. The int128 type checks
> aren't comparable.
>
The atomics check don't guard
> against compilers that allow to reference undefined functions at compile
> time.
I am not sure about "comparable", but anyway you can make PR with a fix
or at least make an issue in my tracker and I fix it.
No LLVM detection.
>
Sure! Because my code base still on postgres 10. After all words about new
build system and cmake here, I have no plan to support not
released versions. I am not a masochist...
Regards,
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-05-03 02:34:04 | Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled? |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-05-03 00:52:00 | Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms |