On 1/11/13 4:03 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Has anyone played with this? Seen any results? It looks like most
> testing is being done on Mac OSX (via buildfarm).
Works fine. We also have non-OSX tests on the buildfarm for it.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.o
On fre, 2010-06-11 at 07:00 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> The second problem is that the prototype check for accept() fails.
> This
> is because glibc defines the second argument to be a "transparent
> union", apparently to make it look like a lot of things at once.
> clang
> apparently doesn't
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> So, clang 2.7 didn't fix it. Do we want to proceed with my patch or
> leave clang unsupported?
Given that the patch breaks plperl, I'd vote no ... but in any case
right now is not the time to be applying it. Maybe it would be useful
to put it in HEAD after we branch 9
On fre, 2010-06-25 at 15:49 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> For the record, here is a patch that would address these issues.
>
> At the moment, I'm waiting to get my hands on the new version 2.7 of
> clang to see if some of these issues have gone away.
>
> Considering that clang already helped u
On ons, 2010-06-30 at 20:10 +0200, Gibheer wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:49:40 -0400, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
> >
> > For the record, here is a patch that would address these issues.
> >
> > At the moment, I'm waiting to get my hands on the new version 2.7 of
> > clang to see if some of thes
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:49:40 -0400, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>
> For the record, here is a patch that would address these issues.
>
> At the moment, I'm waiting to get my hands on the new version 2.7 of
> clang to see if some of these issues have gone away.
>
> Considering that clang already hel
On fre, 2010-06-11 at 07:00 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> The second problem is that the prototype check for accept() fails.
> This
> is because glibc defines the second argument to be a "transparent
> union", apparently to make it look like a lot of things at once.
> clang
> apparently doesn't
Takahiro Itagaki writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> max_locks_per_xact != max_locks_per_xact)
>>
>> Looks like a bug.
> Ah, it should be compared with the same name field in ControlFile.
Yeah, obvious typo, please commit.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
On tor, 2010-06-10 at 09:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > Quick testing shows that clang doesn't get through the configure stage
> > on this Debian system -- it looks like some amount of better integration
> > with glibc might be needed. Building with llvm-gcc works fine,
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Some new warnings, however:
>
> xlog.c:7759:22: warning: self-comparison always results in a constant
> value
> max_locks_per_xact != max_locks_per_xact)
>^
>
> Looks like a bug.
Ah, it should be compared with the s
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> [ assorted LLVM warnings ]
> dt_common.c:818:75: warning: more data arguments than '%' conversions
> [-Wformat-extra-args]
> sprintf(str + strlen(str), (min != 0) ?
> "%+03d:%02d" : "%+03d", hour, min);
> ~~~^
> [and a few mo
On tor, 2010-06-10 at 11:55 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Quick testing shows that clang doesn't get through the configure stage
> on this Debian system -- it looks like some amount of better
> integration with glibc might be needed.
Some details on this ...
configure has two problems. The fi
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> Quick testing shows that clang doesn't get through the configure stage
> on this Debian system -- it looks like some amount of better integration
> with glibc might be needed. Building with llvm-gcc works fine, but I
> understand that using llvm-gcc with native code gen
On tis, 2010-06-08 at 12:12 +0200, P. Caillaud wrote:
> I'd like to experiment on compiling postgres with LLVM (either llvm-gcc or
> clang) on Linux, is it supported ? Where should I start ?
The way to choose a compiler is
./configure CC=your-cc ...other...options...
We support a fair amount o
On ons, 2010-06-09 at 09:59 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote:
> The most heavily platform dependent part of the code is the spinlock
> implementation. You might want to check that it actually uses the
> version optimized for your platform, not the (much slower) generic
> implementation based on semaphore
On Jun 8, 2010, at 12:12 , P. Caillaud wrote:
> I'd like to experiment on compiling postgres with LLVM (either llvm-gcc or
> clang) on Linux, is it supported ? Where should I start ?
Setting the environment variables CC and perhabs LD to your favorite compile
before running ./configure should do
16 matches
Mail list logo
