I wrote:
> Marina Polyakova <m.polyak...@postgrespro.ru> writes:
>> On 18-01-2018 19:53, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> So basically, we're outta luck and we have to consider __int128 as
>>> unsupportable on SPARC. I'm inclined to mechanize that as a test on
>>> $host_cpu. At least that means we don't need an AC_RUN test ;-)
>> %-)) :-)
>> Can I do something else about this problem?..
> I don't see any other workable alternative.
But ... let's not panic, but wait and see the final result of the
discussion on the gcc PR. Jakub at least seems to think it ought
to be a supportable case.
What you could do in the meantime is work on finding a variation of
Victor's test that will detect the bug regardless of -O level.
If we do have hope that future gcc versions will handle this correctly,
we'll need a better test rather than just summarily dismissing
host_cpu = sparc.
regards, tom lane
