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

Re: solaris 10 with gcc 3.3.2

From: "Belbin, Peter" <PBelbin(at)McLeodUSA(dot)com>
To: 'Tom Lane' <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: solaris 10 with gcc 3.3.2
Date: 2004-12-20 14:40:11
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Yeah, I've already fired off a query about this gcc build to the source.

In my case, I downloaded it from, and, for good measure,
I also tried gcc 3.4.2 for solaris 9, on a solaris 10 box, and, indeed, it
looks like the same problem is there.

So, it's entirely possible that the build they've got listed for 10 was
either built on a version of solaris 10 which was earlier than what I'm
using (b69), or, it could have been built on a solaris 9 box.

Either way, I'm asking about it, because it does seem, to me, to be a gcc

I could try building gcc myself, but, that won't fix the problem with the
version on the sunfreeware site, which a lot of people rely on, I expect.



-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us] 
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 12:00 AM
To: Belbin, Peter
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [BUGS] solaris 10 with gcc 3.3.2 

I wrote:
> This is standard practice for gcc: it tries to use "cleaned up" 
> versions of system headers that will not elicit useless warnings from 
> gcc.  It's a good idea, actually, because the degree of insanity in 
> vendor-supplied system headers is pretty depressing.  But if the gcc 
> install process generated an invalid "cleanup" file then you need to 
> take that up with the gcc boys, not us.

On rereading this, a nearly-dead neuron fired --- I have seen problems of
this sort arise when someone took a gcc installation generated on
NiftyVendorUnix M.N and copied it verbatim to NiftyVendorUnix M.N+1, or
indeed any release other than M.N.  Then you have a situation where gcc is
inserting cleaned-up versions of some system headers but not others (because
it doesn't force the issue when it doesn't have to), and if the vendor did
something like move a typedef from one header to another, you lose, because
the cleaned-up headers are not in sync with the others.

In short ... where'd you get your gcc installation from?

			regards, tom lane

NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential
information and is intended only for the person(s) named.  Any use, copying
or disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this transmission in error, please notify the sender via e-mail.

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-12-20 14:55:36
Subject: Re: 8.0.0rc1 on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00
Previous:From: PostgreSQL Bugs ListDate: 2004-12-20 14:35:51
Subject: BUG #1351: service postgresql start failed

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group