From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Bison 3.0 updates |
Date: | 2013-07-29 11:11:13 |
Message-ID: | 20130729111113.GF15510@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | buildfarm-members pgsql-hackers |
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > However, I comment on this mainly because anchovy has had issues with
> > 9.1 and older for some time, which looks like an issue with GCC 4.8.0.
> > Did you happen to resolve or identify what is happening there..?
>
> Yeah, we know about that:
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/14242.1365200084@sss.pgh.pa.us
Ah, right, read the thread but didn't attach it to anchovy.
> The bottom line was:
> >> It looks like our choices are (1) teach configure to enable
> >> -fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations if the compiler recognizes it,
> >> or (2) back-port commit 8137f2c32322c624e0431fac1621e8e9315202f9.
>
> I am in favor of fixing the back branches via (1), because it's less
> work and much less likely to break third-party extensions. Some other
> people argued for (2), but I've not seen any patch emerge from them,
> and you can bet I'm not going to do it.
Yea, just passing -fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations seems like the
safest and best option to me also..
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-07-29 11:36:01 | Re: Bison 3.0 updates |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-07-29 05:28:09 | Re: Bison 3.0 updates |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-07-29 11:20:33 | Re: ToDo: possible more rights to database owners |
Previous Message | Giuseppe Broccolo | 2013-07-29 10:00:46 | Re: postgres FDW cost estimation options unrecognized in 9.3-beta1 |