Done, for Solaris and x86.
---
Robert Lor wrote:
Hi Bruce,
The new SPARC assembly file src/backend/port/tas/solaris_sparc.s uses /
instead of ! for comments, and as a result the compile fails with Sun
Studio 11.
Bruce, the change was only needed for the SPARC version only. The x86
file worked just fine before and needs to be reverted back. Yes, they
are different.
Apologies if the message was not clear the first time!
Thanks,
Robert
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Done, for Solaris and x86.
Robert Lor wrote:
Bruce, the change was only needed for the SPARC version only. The x86
file worked just fine before and needs to be reverted back. Yes, they
are different.
OK, fixed, thanks.
Apologies if the message was not clear the first time!
Yes, you were clear, but it was so
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Robert Lor wrote:
Bruce, the change was only needed for the SPARC version only. The x86
file worked just fine before and needs to be reverted back. Yes, they
are different.
OK, fixed, thanks.
Apologies if the message was not clear the first time!
Yes, you were clear,
Hi Bruce,
The new SPARC assembly file src/backend/port/tas/solaris_sparc.s uses /
instead of ! for comments, and as a result the compile fails with Sun
Studio 11. Please modify the first 3 lines to look like the following.
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
Great, changes attached and applied. I removed the solaris_i386 and
solaris_x86_64.s files and made just one solaris_x86.s. I updated the
build system to use the new file, updated the macros, and added some
documentation on the
Theo Schlossnagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd remind everyone that the spinlock stuff is entirely optional at
build time.
Not really. The performance hit for not having hardware spinlocks is
so severe that it's not considered a reasonable fallback.
I also think it immensely useful to
Tom Lane wrote:
Theo Schlossnagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd remind everyone that the spinlock stuff is entirely optional at
build time.
Not really. The performance hit for not having hardware spinlocks is
so severe that it's not considered a reasonable fallback.
I also think it
Great, changes attached and applied. I removed the solaris_i386 and
solaris_x86_64.s files and made just one solaris_x86.s. I updated the
build system to use the new file, updated the macros, and added some
documentation on the approach. Thanks.
Would you test current CVS to make sure it
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
! extern volatile slock_t pg_atomic_cas(volatile slock_t *lock, slock_t with,
!
slock_t cmp);
Surely it is not useful to mark the result of a function as volatile.
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
Great, changes attached and applied. I removed the solaris_i386 and
solaris_x86_64.s files and made just one solaris_x86.s. I updated the
build system to use the new file, updated the macros, and added some
documentation on the approach. Thanks.
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
! extern volatile slock_t pg_atomic_cas(volatile slock_t *lock, slock_t
with,
!
slock_t cmp);
Surely it is not useful to mark the result of a function
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Great, changes attached and applied. I removed the solaris_i386 and
solaris_x86_64.s files and made just one solaris_x86.s. I updated the
build system to use the new file, updated the macros, and added some
documentation on the approach. Thanks.
Would you test current
Kris Jurka wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Great, changes attached and applied. I removed the solaris_i386 and
solaris_x86_64.s files and made just one solaris_x86.s. I updated the
build system to use the new file, updated the macros, and added some
documentation on the approach. Thanks.
14 matches
Mail list logo
