Re: installing 7.2b3 on IRIX 6.5.13

Tom Lane wrote:

> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > One of these days I'm going to write this down somewhere:  GCC + Irix +
> > PostgreSQL does not work -- until proven otherwise and/or GCC is fixed.
>
> Oh.  Yup, that should be documented or enforced by configure.
>
> > I was going to suggest myself someday that we force CC=cc, but it should
> > be done in configure.in (near line 274) and not in the template file.
>
> Makes sense to me to do it in configure.in.  Shall we go ahead and put
> that in?
>
> > We've had successful reports for Irix in the past, so I don't think the -n
> > and -r flags are strictly necessary -- at least I'd like to see more
> > information regarding them.  What makes -n32 and -r12000 better than, say,
> > -n64 and -r6000?
>
> Luis' followup indicated that -r wasn't really needed.  Not sure about -n.
>
>                         regards, tom lane

sorry for replying only to tom (a mouse mistake)
In our case -n32 (force new 32 bit object(maybe -o32 in old platforms)) was
necessary because with 64 bit object we were getting linking errors.
-rx is processor instruction set, it is not necessary but I recommend it for
better performance.

I've been this afternoon search why it fails with gcc and I think I know the
answer:
from sgi.com
gcc vs. cc
                      Code that runs fine when compiled with SGI cc and
doesn't run when compiled with gcc                      might be calling one of the following functions:
                              inet_ntoa, inet_lnaof, inet_netof,
inet_makeaddr, semctl
                      (there may be others). These are functions that get
passed or return structs that are smaller than                      16 bytes but not 8 bytes long. gcc and SGI cc are
incompatible in the way they pass these                      structs so compiling with gcc and linking with the SGI
libc.so (which was compiled with                      the SGI cc) is likely to cause these problems. Note that
this problem is pretty rare since such                      functions are not widely used. This may be considered a
bug in gcc but is too involved to fix

this is fixed in gcc libs libgcc.a I'm not sure if it works cause I can't drop
the database just now maybe tomorrow,
If  I can test it tomorrow I'll tell you
Hope it helps   best wishes