Re: BUG #13498: make check failures
От | Pete Lancashire |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #13498: make check failures |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA-F0u9NG8S7W5mq=psFG8ZHaqLvONXipjDbk0csYbVb6t0E9A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #13498: make check failures (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #13498: make check failures
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
I'll agree to a point. I'll see what else I can find out. Is there an option to make the test more verbose ? And I'll see what I can get out of the what changes the optimization does Its a pitty, I'd love to get postgresql screaming on a P-series. In other things level 3 can increase the performance 20-30% and level 5 in one program that does a lot of array searching 50-70% On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > pete@petelancashire.com writes: > > make check > > -O2 passes w/o errors > > -O3 with or without -strict fails > > Presumably what is happening here (and also in your followon #13499) > is that xlc with higher optimization levels generates bad code. Whether > this is a compiler bug, or is traceable to a valid deficiency in our code, > is really impossible to tell for anyone without access to that compiler > (and even with access, it might be a lot of work). If you want to trace > it down I'm afraid it's going to be pretty much your responsibility to do > it. > > regards, tom lane > >
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: