Re: Fwd: Re: Compile fails on AIX 6.1

Hello,
could you try IBM XLC/C++ instead of gcc?

Bye
  Rainer

On 15.07.2014 18:51, Lars Ewald (web.de) wrote:
> Sorry, here is my message for the mailing list.
>> ---------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ----------
>> Von: "Lars Ewald (web.de)" <l.ewald-web@lars-ewald.de>
>> An: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>> Datum: 14. Juli 2014 um 17:23
>> Betreff: Re: [BUGS] Compile fails on AIX 6.1
>>
>> Hello Tom,
>>
>> > >> PPC what exactly?
>>
>> PowerPC_POWER5:
>> System Model: IBM,9110-51A
>> Machine Serial Number: *********
>> Processor Type: PowerPC_POWER5
>> Processor Implementation Mode: POWER 5
>> Processor Version: PV_5_2
>> Number Of Processors: 4
>> Processor Clock Speed: 1499 MHz
>> CPU Type: 64-bit
>> Kernel Type: 64-bit
>> LPAR Info: 1 **********
>> Memory Size: 7936 MB
>> Good Memory Size: 7936 MB
>> Platform Firmware level: SF240_418
>> Firmware Version: IBM,SF240_418
>> Full Core: false
>>
>>
>>
>> Would it help to use a POWER7 system as followed?
>> System Model: IBM,8202-E4C
>> Machine Serial Number: *********
>> Processor Type: PowerPC_POWER7
>> Processor Implementation Mode: POWER 7
>> Processor Version: PV_7_Compat
>> Number Of Processors: 4
>> Processor Clock Speed: 3024 MHz
>> CPU Type: 64-bit
>> Kernel Type: 64-bit
>> LPAR Info: 15 ************
>> Memory Size: 8192 MB
>> Good Memory Size: 8192 MB
>> Platform Firmware level: AL740_126
>> Firmware Version: IBM,AL740_100
>> Full Core: false
>>
>>
>> > Still, configure should have caught that. Does configure end up
>> > defining HAVE_PPC_LWARX_MUTEX_HINT in src/include/pg_config.h?
>>
>> Yes, I HAVE_PPC_LWARX_MUTEX_HINT was defined.
>>
>> [...]
>> /* Define to 1 if you have the POSIX signal interface. */
>> #define HAVE_POSIX_SIGNALS /**/
>>
>> /* Define to 1 if the assembler supports PPC's LWARX mutex hint bit. */
>> #define HAVE_PPC_LWARX_MUTEX_HINT 1
>>
>> /* Define to 1 if you have the `pstat' function. */
>> /* #undef HAVE_PSTAT */
>>
>> /* Define to 1 if the PS_STRINGS thing exists. */
>> /* #undef HAVE_PS_STRINGS */
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>
>> > Assuming that HAVE_PPC_LWARX_MUTEX_HINT is *not* getting set,
>> > I'd suggest commenting out the #define for USE_PPC_LWSYNC in
>> > pg_config_manual.h and see if it gets better. If that is the
>> > answer then I guess we will need a configure-time test for lwsync
>> > support after all.
>>
>> Commenting out USE_PPC_LWSYNC did not help. Also, commenting
>> USE_PPC_LWSYNC out and set HAVE_PPC_LWARX_MUTEX_HINT to "0", was
>> not successful.
>>
>>
>> Best regards
>> Lars
>>
>>
>>
>> > Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> hat am 11. Juli 2014 um 16:55
>> geschrieben:
>> >
>> >
>> > [ please keep the mailing list cc'd ]
>> >
>> > "Lars Ewald (web.de)" <l.ewald-web@lars-ewald.de> writes:
>> > > Thank you for answering very fast.
>> >
>> > >> PPC what exactly?
>> >
>> > > chrp with 64-bit.
>> > > MACHINE_ARCHITECTURE: chrp
>> > > HARDWARE_BITMODE: 64
>> >
>> > > Do you need further information regarding the system?
>> >
>> > Yes, please; CHRP is pretty non-specific as regards the processor
>> > generation. However, it's probably *old* since CHRP wasn't too
>> > successful according to Wikipedia. If the CPU predates POWER6 or
>> > thereabouts, then lack of LWARX hint support in the assembler
>> > wouldn't be surprising.
>> >
>> > Still, configure should have caught that. Does configure end up
>> > defining HAVE_PPC_LWARX_MUTEX_HINT in src/include/pg_config.h?
>> >
>> > Hmm ... looking at s_lock.h some more, I wonder if maybe it's
>> > LWSYNC and not LWARX that's causing the problem. We currently
>> > set USE_PPC_LWSYNC for any PPC64 build (see pg_config_manual.h).
>> > IIRC we knew that there were a few machines for which that heuristic
>> > would fail, but we didn't think anybody would be using Postgres
>> > on them.
>> >
>> > Assuming that HAVE_PPC_LWARX_MUTEX_HINT is *not* getting set,
>> > I'd suggest commenting out the #define for USE_PPC_LWSYNC in
>> > pg_config_manual.h and see if it gets better. If that is the
>> > answer then I guess we will need a configure-time test for lwsync
>> > support after all.
>> >
>> > >> I think the odds are pretty high that the problem here is that
>> we tried to
>> > >> use the "mutex hint" option in our PPC spinlock assembly code,
>> and the
>> > >> system's assembler doesn't recognize that.
>> >
>> > > Would it help to use another compiler, e.g. XL C?
>> >
>> > It'd be worth trying if you have another one at hand, but it's
>> > hard to say what the results would be.
>> >
>> > Note that there's a question here not only as to whether it will
>> > build, but whether it will run on your hardware. I'd definitely
>> > try "make check" before believing that you have a working build.
>> >
>> > >> However, we only try to use that option after the configure
>> script has
>> > >> confirmed that the syntax is
>> > >> accepted, so it's not real clear how you got this result.
>> Perhaps you
>> > >> tried to change compilers without redoing the configure run?
>> >
>> > > No. I did not change the compiler. By the way, I always run "make
>> clean" and
>> > > then re"configure"
>> > > to recompile the code.
>> >
>> > That might be good enough, but personally I always do "make distclean"
>> > before reconfiguring.
>> >
>> > regards, tom lane
>
>