Обсуждение: Patch for m68k architecture
This patch should enable 6.5 to build on Motorola 68000 architecture. It comes
from Roman Hodek <Roman.Hodek@informatik.uni-erlangen.de>.
Vote against SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/
========================================
Oliver Elphick Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
PGP key from public servers; key ID 32B8FAA1
========================================
"I love them that love me; and those that seek me early
shall find me." Proverbs 8:17
Вложения
Applied. You man want to give us a fix for /template/.similar for that platform, if needed to configure guesses the proper platform. > This patch should enable 6.5 to build on Motorola 68000 architecture. It comes > from Roman Hodek <Roman.Hodek@informatik.uni-erlangen.de>. > > Content-Description: ol [Attachment, skipping...] > Vote against SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/ > ======================================== > Oliver Elphick Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk > Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver > PGP key from public servers; key ID 32B8FAA1 > ======================================== > "I love them that love me; and those that seek me early > shall find me." Proverbs 8:17 -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
At 8:29 AM -0700 6/10/99, Oliver Elphick wrote: >This patch should enable 6.5 to build on Motorola 68000 architecture. It >comes >from Roman Hodek <Roman.Hodek@informatik.uni-erlangen.de>. Has anyone compared the Linux/m68k patch with the NetBSD/m68k patch (which I believe was already included in 6.5)? Also I have been trying to cross-post some traffic on the port-mac68k@NetBSD.org list to the PG-ports list and it hasn't been appearing afaict. Am I just not looking carefully enough or is something screwy? Signature failed Preliminary Design Review. Feasibility of a new signature is currently being evaluated. h.b.hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu
>At 8:29 AM -0700 6/10/99, Oliver Elphick wrote: >>This patch should enable 6.5 to build on Motorola 68000 architecture. It >>comes >>from Roman Hodek <Roman.Hodek@informatik.uni-erlangen.de>. > >Has anyone compared the Linux/m68k patch with the NetBSD/m68k patch (which >I believe was already included in 6.5)? yes. >Also I have been trying to cross-post some traffic on the >port-mac68k@NetBSD.org list to the PG-ports list and it hasn't been >appearing afaict. Am I just not looking carefully enough or is something >screwy? I have tried 6.4beta4 on NetBSD 1.3.3/m68k. It failed while running initdb: Creating template database in /usr/local/pgsql/data/base/template1 FATAL: s_lock(001bbea3) at bufmgr.c:1992, stuck spinlock. Aborting. FATAL: s_lock(001bbea3) at bufmgr.c:1992, stuck spinlock. Aborting. Seems something really bad is going on... -- Tatsuo Ishii
>>At 8:29 AM -0700 6/10/99, Oliver Elphick wrote: >>>This patch should enable 6.5 to build on Motorola 68000 architecture. It >>>comes >>>from Roman Hodek <Roman.Hodek@informatik.uni-erlangen.de>. >> >>Has anyone compared the Linux/m68k patch with the NetBSD/m68k patch (which >>I believe was already included in 6.5)? > >yes. > >>Also I have been trying to cross-post some traffic on the >>port-mac68k@NetBSD.org list to the PG-ports list and it hasn't been >>appearing afaict. Am I just not looking carefully enough or is something >>screwy? > >I have tried 6.4beta4 on NetBSD 1.3.3/m68k. It failed while running >initdb: > >Creating template database in /usr/local/pgsql/data/base/template1 > >FATAL: s_lock(001bbea3) at bufmgr.c:1992, stuck spinlock. Aborting. > >FATAL: s_lock(001bbea3) at bufmgr.c:1992, stuck spinlock. Aborting. > >Seems something really bad is going on... I reverted back the patch for include/storage/s_lock.h and seems NetBSD/m68k port begins to work again. I think we should revert back the linux/m68k patches and leave them for 6.5.1. Objection? -- Tatsuo Ishii
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>>>At 8:29 AM -0700 6/10/99, Oliver Elphick wrote:
>>>>This patch should enable 6.5 to build on Motorola 68000 architecture.
...
>>Seems something really bad is going on...
>
>I reverted back the patch for include/storage/s_lock.h and seems
>NetBSD/m68k port begins to work again.
>
>I think we should revert back the linux/m68k patches and leave them
>for 6.5.1. Objection?
That seems sensible; presumably no other current users are on linux_m68k
or this would have been sorted already. I will keep it in the Debian
version where there can't be any conflict with NetBSD users.
It seems that the patch needs to depend not only on being m68k but also
on being linux. What defined variable can we use to distinguish between
the two?
--
Vote against SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/
========================================
Oliver Elphick Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
PGP key from public servers; key ID 32B8FAA1
========================================
"And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou
comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him,
Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me
in paradise." Luke 23:42,43
> >I reverted back the patch for include/storage/s_lock.h and seems > >NetBSD/m68k port begins to work again. > > > >I think we should revert back the linux/m68k patches and leave them > >for 6.5.1. Objection? > >That seems sensible; presumably no other current users are on linux_m68k >or this would have been sorted already. I will keep it in the Debian >version where there can't be any conflict with NetBSD users. > >It seems that the patch needs to depend not only on being m68k but also >on being linux. What defined variable can we use to distinguish between >the two? I have changed #if defined(__mc68000__) to: #if defined(__mc68000__) && defined(__linux__) in s_lock.h. -- Tatsuo Ishii
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>>>At 8:29 AM -0700 6/10/99, Oliver Elphick wrote:
>>>>This patch should enable 6.5 to build on Motorola 68000 architecture.
...
>>Seems something really bad is going on...
>
>I reverted back the patch for include/storage/s_lock.h and seems
>NetBSD/m68k port begins to work again.
>
>I think we should revert back the linux/m68k patches and leave them
>for 6.5.1. Objection?
That seems sensible; presumably no other current users are on linux_m68k
or this would have been sorted already. I will keep it in the Debian
version where there can't be any conflict with NetBSD users.
It seems that the patch needs to depend not only on being m68k but also
on being linux. What defined variable can we use to distinguish between
the two?
--
Vote against SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/
========================================
Oliver Elphick Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
PGP key from public servers; key ID 32B8FAA1
========================================
"And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou
comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him,
Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me
in paradise." Luke 23:42,43
At 1:47 AM -0700 6/12/99, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >I have tried 6.4beta4 on NetBSD 1.3.3/m68k. It failed while running >initdb: > >Creating template database in /usr/local/pgsql/data/base/template1 > >FATAL: s_lock(001bbea3) at bufmgr.c:1992, stuck spinlock. Aborting. > >FATAL: s_lock(001bbea3) at bufmgr.c:1992, stuck spinlock. Aborting. > >Seems something really bad is going on... That certainly seems bad enough, but I did not see that problem. Are you talking about way back when 6.4 was still in beta? Or did you mean 6.5? As I tried to post earlier: when I built 6.4.2 using the patches it built fine and initdb worked. Most regression tests seemed ok-ish, but one of them noticed that 'now' - 'current' was more than 200 days. I had a problem building 6.5, but I think it was related to my configuration rather than to Postgres. Signature failed Preliminary Design Review. Feasibility of a new signature is currently being evaluated. h.b.hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu
At 8:39 AM -0700 6/12/99, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >I reverted back the patch for include/storage/s_lock.h and seems >NetBSD/m68k port begins to work again. > >I think we should revert back the linux/m68k patches and leave them >for 6.5.1. Objection? I would like to support linux/m68k, but on the Mac 68K platform the NetBSD folks are more numerous. Unless linux outnumbers NetBSD on some 68k platforms other than Mac (and I think Amiga) I don't think you should break a (mostly) working port in order to support a less widely used one. Just my $0.02. Signature failed Preliminary Design Review. Feasibility of a new signature is currently being evaluated. h.b.hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu
>>I reverted back the patch for include/storage/s_lock.h and seems >>NetBSD/m68k port begins to work again. >> >>I think we should revert back the linux/m68k patches and leave them >>for 6.5.1. Objection? > >I would like to support linux/m68k, but on the Mac 68K platform the NetBSD >folks are more numerous. Unless linux outnumbers NetBSD on some 68k >platforms other than Mac (and I think Amiga) I don't think you should break >a (mostly) working port in order to support a less widely used one. I think the change I made in s_lock.h should make both NetBSD/m68k and Linux/m68k happy. Can some Linux/m68k folks confirm it? -- Tatsuo Ishii