Re: odd 7.4 build failure on new sparc machine
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: odd 7.4 build failure on new sparc machine |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4061.24.211.165.134.1151921576.squirrel@www.dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: odd 7.4 build failure on new sparc machine (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane said: > Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: >> I am seeing a strange failure on the new box Sun donated, when trying >> to > >> ccache gcc -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -g -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes >> -Wmissing-declarations -c tas.s /usr/ccs/bin/ld -r -o SUBSYS.o >> dynloader.o pg_sema.o pg_shmem.o tas.o ld: fatal: relocation error: >> R_SPARC_32: file tas.o: symbol <unknown>: offset 0xec1 is non-aligned >> [etc] > >> What is odd is that the identical file seems to succeeed on the later >> 8.0 and 8.1 branches. > > The solaris_sparc.s file seems identical in these branches up to CVS > label ... but are the compilation options the same? The critical fix > might be somewhere in the configure/Makefile chain. Yes - see later email where I concluded that. > > Another thing to try is whether it works without ccache. We've seen > plenty of trouble from that tool :-( I am still waiting to see a smoking gun on it. So far there has been some smoke but no gun or fire (sorry for mixed metaphor). What I am thinking of doing is having buildfarm blow away the cache on failure, so that ccache would be forced to recompile fropm scratch unless the last case was a success. Thoughts? >> Why do we have "mov 1,%o0" immediately followed by "mov 0,%o0"? > > Better read up on branch delay slots... > Yes, ok, I understand. I must have forgotten that one had to write the assembler in that non-linear fashion to get the benefit of saving an instruction cycle. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: