MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 12:53:19 +0300
From: Marina Polyakova <m.polyakova@postgrespro.ru>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: vitus@wagner.pp.ru, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
 pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Subject: Re: master make check fails on Solaris 10
Organization: Postgres Professional
In-Reply-To: <31743.1516206789@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <0d3a9fa264cebe1cb9966f37b7c06e86@postgrespro.ru>
 <20180111173938.jimybeayp2u5mmup@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <31a342fa6a025a8bdfc5b8b19c29d56d@postgrespro.ru>
 <fc3c1b52d2d4121cccfc13635005bbd0@postgrespro.ru>
 <1232.1515780057@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <b946893927ccfd87146d8a7c9f3bbe29@postgrespro.ru>
 <15299.1515867055@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <a5559105243efcf6fb619d86c5702115@postgrespro.ru>
 <18209.1516059711@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <90ab676392c8f9c84431976147097cf0@postgrespro.ru>
 <17897.1516202926@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <1c70bab595a37ffa3a7fafea29fa6f55@postgrespro.ru>
 <31743.1516206789@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Message-ID: <0e183c12a68af526ebc03c5c26206c44@postgrespro.ru>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.2.4
Precedence: bulk

Thank you!

On 17-01-2018 19:33, Tom Lane wrote:
> Attached is a draft patch to incorporate Victor's slimmed-down test
> into configure.  If you have a chance, could you confirm it does
> the right thing on your Sparc machine?

> Victor Wagner <vitus(at)wagner(dot)pp(dot)ru> writes:
>> It seems that what it does is not exactly a right thing.
>> I've applied it to commit 9c7d06d60680 in master and see following
>> checking for __int128 alignment bug... ok
>> As far as I understand your patch, there should be:
>> checking for __int128 alignment bug... broken
> ...
>> Then in the pg_config.h I see
>> /* The normal alignment of `PG_INT128_TYPE', in bytes. */
>> #define ALIGNOF_PG_INT128_TYPE 16
>> /* Define to the name of a signed 128-bit integer type. */
>> #define PG_INT128_TYPE __int128
> ...
>> However, make check passes.
> Uh ... how could that be?  If the output of configure is exactly
> the same as before the patch, how could the end result be different?

Applying your patch on commit f033462d8f77c40b7d6b33c5116e50118fb4699d 
and using the configuration command from [1], I got:
checking for __int128... yes
checking for __int128 alignment bug... broken

Nothing is defined for int128 in pg_config.h:
/* The normal alignment of `PG_INT128_TYPE', in bytes. */
/* #undef ALIGNOF_PG_INT128_TYPE */
...
/* Define to the name of a signed 128-bit integer type. */
/* #undef PG_INT128_TYPE */

And make check-world passes. Victor said that he used a much simpler 
configuration command, and I'm trying to figure out what's changed..

> BTW, it would be a good idea to set up a buildfarm member on that
> machine, if you care about whether that configuration continues
> to work in the future.

Victor answered this in [2]:
> Really we already have buildfarm member on this machine. It is just
> member of PostgresPro private buildfarm, not of big comminity
> buildfarm.
> 
> So, I'll register it in the big buildfarm as soon as I figure out how
> to distribute limited resources of this machine between two buildfarms.

P.S. I found the trailing whitespace in line 80:
! int128a q;

[1] 
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/0d3a9fa264cebe1cb9966f37b7c06e86%40postgrespro.ru
[2] 
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180117203648.2626d97a%40wagner.wagner.home

-- 
Marina Polyakova
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company