Обсуждение: template/alpha_cc
src/template/alpha_cc seems missing in 6.4.2 but does exist in current. What about 6.4_REL? I belive that file should exist in any version of source tree. -- Tatsuo Ishii
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp> writes:
> src/template/alpha_cc seems missing in 6.4.2 but does exist in current.
> What about 6.4_REL? I belive that file should exist in any version of
> source tree.
$ cvs log alpha_cc
RCS file: /usr/local/cvsroot/pgsql/src/template/alpha_cc,v
Working file: alpha_cc
head: 1.1
branch:
locks: strict
access list:
symbolic names:
keyword substitution: kv
total revisions: 1; selected revisions: 1
description:
----------------------------
revision 1.1
date: 1998/12/18 07:08:02; author: momjian; state: Exp;
etc etc...
There's no REL6_4 tag, therefore this file does not exist as far as
the 6.4.* branch is concerned. (Same deal as with discussion of
vacuumdb a day or two ago.) Bruce could've applied a REL6_4 tag to
the file when he created it, but did not.
Do we want to continue updating the REL6_4 branch for stuff like this?
Or is it time to declare 6.4.2 the last of that branch and press forward
with 6.5 beta test?
regards, tom lane
On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp> writes:
> > src/template/alpha_cc seems missing in 6.4.2 but does exist in current.
> > What about 6.4_REL? I belive that file should exist in any version of
> > source tree.
>
> $ cvs log alpha_cc
>
> RCS file: /usr/local/cvsroot/pgsql/src/template/alpha_cc,v
> Working file: alpha_cc
> head: 1.1
> branch:
> locks: strict
> access list:
> symbolic names:
> keyword substitution: kv
> total revisions: 1; selected revisions: 1
> description:
> ----------------------------
> revision 1.1
> date: 1998/12/18 07:08:02; author: momjian; state: Exp;
> etc etc...
>
> There's no REL6_4 tag, therefore this file does not exist as far as
> the 6.4.* branch is concerned. (Same deal as with discussion of
> vacuumdb a day or two ago.) Bruce could've applied a REL6_4 tag to
> the file when he created it, but did not.
>
> Do we want to continue updating the REL6_4 branch for stuff like this?
> Or is it time to declare 6.4.2 the last of that branch and press forward
> with 6.5 beta test?
Nothing new gets added to the REL6_4 branch, period. Personally, there
also will never be a v6.4.3, so the REL6_4 branch effectively died the day
v6.4.2 was released...
Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
>On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp> writes: >> > src/template/alpha_cc seems missing in 6.4.2 but does exist in current. >> > What about 6.4_REL? I belive that file should exist in any version of >> > source tree. >> >> $ cvs log alpha_cc >> >> RCS file: /usr/local/cvsroot/pgsql/src/template/alpha_cc,v >> Working file: alpha_cc >> head: 1.1 >> branch: >> locks: strict >> access list: >> symbolic names: >> keyword substitution: kv >> total revisions: 1; selected revisions: 1 >> description: >> ---------------------------- >> revision 1.1 >> date: 1998/12/18 07:08:02; author: momjian; state: Exp; >> etc etc... >> >> There's no REL6_4 tag, therefore this file does not exist as far as >> the 6.4.* branch is concerned. (Same deal as with discussion of >> vacuumdb a day or two ago.) Bruce could've applied a REL6_4 tag to >> the file when he created it, but did not. >> >> Do we want to continue updating the REL6_4 branch for stuff like this? >> Or is it time to declare 6.4.2 the last of that branch and press forward >> with 6.5 beta test? > >Nothing new gets added to the REL6_4 branch, period. Personally, there >also will never be a v6.4.3, so the REL6_4 branch effectively died the day >v6.4.2 was released... That's fine. I'm just curious why that file once existed in 6.4, vanished in 6.4.2, then appears in current. -- Tatsuo Ishii
On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> >On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> >> Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp> writes:
> >> > src/template/alpha_cc seems missing in 6.4.2 but does exist in current.
> >> > What about 6.4_REL? I belive that file should exist in any version of
> >> > source tree.
> >>
> >> $ cvs log alpha_cc
> >>
> >> RCS file: /usr/local/cvsroot/pgsql/src/template/alpha_cc,v
> >> Working file: alpha_cc
> >> head: 1.1
> >> branch:
> >> locks: strict
> >> access list:
> >> symbolic names:
> >> keyword substitution: kv
> >> total revisions: 1; selected revisions: 1
> >> description:
> >> ----------------------------
> >> revision 1.1
> >> date: 1998/12/18 07:08:02; author: momjian; state: Exp;
> >> etc etc...
> >>
> >> There's no REL6_4 tag, therefore this file does not exist as far as
> >> the 6.4.* branch is concerned. (Same deal as with discussion of
> >> vacuumdb a day or two ago.) Bruce could've applied a REL6_4 tag to
> >> the file when he created it, but did not.
> >>
> >> Do we want to continue updating the REL6_4 branch for stuff like this?
> >> Or is it time to declare 6.4.2 the last of that branch and press forward
> >> with 6.5 beta test?
> >
> >Nothing new gets added to the REL6_4 branch, period. Personally, there
> >also will never be a v6.4.3, so the REL6_4 branch effectively died the day
> >v6.4.2 was released...
>
> That's fine. I'm just curious why that file once existed in 6.4,
> vanished in 6.4.2, then appears in current.
According to the log file, this was only created on Dec 18th, after v6.4
was released (see below)...looking at the v6.4.2 distribution, there is a
template for just 'alpha' that was added June 12, 1998...this split
doesn't appear to have been done for/before teh v6.4.2 split though...
> cvs log alpha_cc | more
RCS file: /usr/local/cvsroot/pgsql/src/template/alpha_cc,v
Working file: alpha_cc
head: 1.1
branch:
locks: strict
access list:
symbolic names:
keyword substitution: kv
total revisions: 1; selected revisions: 1
description:
----------------------------
revision 1.1
date: 1998/12/18 07:08:02; author: momjian; state: Exp;
Attached is a patch with some fixes that (I think that) should go into
6.4.1. Here is the list:
- The type int8 now works. In fact, the bug(s) were in
src/backend/port/snprintf.c, so int8 is probably broken in every platform
that hasn't a native snprintf/vsnprintf. The type itself worked as
expected, only the output was wrong. Anyway, this patch should be checked
in other platforms.
- The regression tests for int2 and int4, which were broken due to
differences in the error messages, are fixed.
- The regression test for float8, which was broken in the reference
platform, is also fixed. I don't know if the new file (float8-OSF1.out)
will work on other platforms, but it might be worth to try it.
- Two new template files are provided (alpha_cc, which includes
optimization, and alpha_gcc), and src/templates/.similar is updated
accordingly. src/templates/alpha should be removed from the distribution.
*IMPORTANT NOTE*: I don't know if you can use gcc to compile postgres;
I've written the alpha_gcc file because alpha_cc has some flags that are
specific to DEC C.
- There is a (very basic) Digital Unix specific FAQ in
doc/FAQ_DigitalUnix.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Jos<E9> Lobo Perea Tel: +34 91 336 78 19
=============================================================================
Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, The Hermit Hacker wrote: >On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > >> >On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Tom Lane wrote: >> > >> >Nothing new gets added to the REL6_4 branch, period. Personally, there >> >also will never be a v6.4.3, so the REL6_4 branch effectively died the day >> >v6.4.2 was released... >> >> That's fine. I'm just curious why that file once existed in 6.4, >> vanished in 6.4.2, then appears in current. > >According to the log file, this was only created on Dec 18th, after v6.4 >was released (see below)...looking at the v6.4.2 distribution, there is a >template for just 'alpha' that was added June 12, 1998...this split >doesn't appear to have been done for/before teh v6.4.2 split though... Ehm, let me clarify this thing. This file is part of a patch I submitted a few days (or maybe hours) before 6.4.2 was released. Bruce applied the whole patch to the 6.5 tree, but only a part to the 6.4.2 tree, because he considered that the whole patch was too "dangerous" to apply (because there wasn't time to test whether it affected the other platforms). So, the 6.4.2 tree has template/alpha, and the 6.5 tree has template/alpha_cc and template/alpha_gcc, but not template/alpha. Since then, I haven't had the time to download and test the 6.5 branch to see how things are now (for DU 4, at least). I will do it ASAP. BTW, Compaq has changed the operating system's name from "Digital Unix" to "Tru64 Unix". I will update the docs to reflect this change when I have the time. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Pedro José Lobo Perea Tel: +34 91 336 78 19 Centro de Cálculo Fax: +34 91 331 92 29 EUIT Telecomunicación - UPM e-mail: pjlobo@euitt.upm.es
Thank you for your explanatiopn. Now everything seems clear. My understanding that 6.4 had alpla_cc was apparently wrong. Sorry for the confusion. > Ehm, let me clarify this thing. This file is part of a patch I submitted a > few days (or maybe hours) before 6.4.2 was released. Bruce applied the > whole patch to the 6.5 tree, but only a part to the 6.4.2 tree, > because he considered that the whole patch was too "dangerous" to apply > (because there wasn't time to test whether it affected the other > platforms). So, the 6.4.2 tree has template/alpha, and the 6.5 tree > has template/alpha_cc and template/alpha_gcc, but not template/alpha. > > Since then, I haven't had the time to download and test the 6.5 branch to > see how things are now (for DU 4, at least). I will do it ASAP. > > BTW, Compaq has changed the operating system's name from "Digital Unix" to > "Tru64 Unix". I will update the docs to reflect this change when I have > the time. Oh, "Tru64 Unix"? How can I pronounce it?:-) --- Tatsuo Ishii