Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ebprY-0001Qy-5Y for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 15:42:52 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ebprX-00068e-Ew for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 15:42:51 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ebprX-00068U-6w for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 15:42:51 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ebprU-0001Hw-Gk for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 15:42:50 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w0HFgk4G018796; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 10:42:46 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Victor Wagner cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: master make check fails on Solaris 10 In-reply-to: <20180117181359.3a6cc06c@fafnir.local.vm> References: <0d3a9fa264cebe1cb9966f37b7c06e86@postgrespro.ru> <20180111173938.jimybeayp2u5mmup@alap3.anarazel.de> <31a342fa6a025a8bdfc5b8b19c29d56d@postgrespro.ru> <1232.1515780057@sss.pgh.pa.us> <15299.1515867055@sss.pgh.pa.us> <18209.1516059711@sss.pgh.pa.us> <90ab676392c8f9c84431976147097cf0@postgrespro.ru> <20180117181359.3a6cc06c@fafnir.local.vm> Comments: In-reply-to Victor Wagner message dated "Wed, 17 Jan 2018 18:13:59 +0300" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <18794.1516203766.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 10:42:46 -0500 Message-ID: <18795.1516203766@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Victor Wagner writes: > I'm attaching stripped-down version of test program, which demonstrate > the problem and two assembler listings produced with this C source using > alignment 8 and 16. May be this stripped-down version can be used as > base for configure test. Ah, thanks, this will be easier to work with. > Unfortunately, we have only one Sparc machine and started our > investigation by upgrading GCC 5.2.0 to GCC 5.5.0, so it is hard to > downgrade and test with older GCC. OK. Well, the fact that you get the same failures in PG itself seems like good evidence that the compiler's behavior hasn't changed here. regards, tom lane