Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1o8w0V-0000vE-Nq for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2022 03:47:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1o8w0U-00042z-CG for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2022 03:47:18 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1o8w0U-00042p-3e for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2022 03:47:18 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1o8w0R-0002Co-Ge for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2022 03:47:17 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 2663lA0K2073147; Tue, 5 Jul 2022 23:47:10 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Thomas Munro cc: Peter Geoghegan , Andres Freund , Noah Misch , Robert Haas , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: AIX support - alignment issues In-reply-to: References: <20220702183354.a6uhja35wta7agew@alap3.anarazel.de> <968410.1656789743@sss.pgh.pa.us> <977853.1656794075@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1415825.1656893299@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1827177.1656996797@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Thomas Munro message dated "Wed, 06 Jul 2022 14:21:50 +1200" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2073145.1657079230.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2022 23:47:10 -0400 Message-ID: <2073146.1657079230@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Thomas Munro writes: > OK, here's a new attempt, this time leaving the hppa bits in. The > main tricksy bit is where s_lock.h is simplified a bit by moving the > fully inline GCC-only hppa support up a bit (it was handled a bit > weirdly with some #undef jiggery-pokery before to share stuff between > aCC and GCC), making the diff a little hard to follow. Does this make > sense? It might also be possible to drop one of __hppa and __hppa__ > where they are both tested (not clear to me if that is an aCC/GCC > thing). I have no idea if this'll actually work (or ever worked) on > NetBSD/hppa... if it comes to it I could try to boot it under > qemu-system-hppa if that's what it takes, but it may be easy for you > to test... Our HEAD does work on that NetBSD installation. I can try this patch, but it'll take an hour or two to get results ... stay tuned. I'm not sure about the __hppa vs __hppa__ thing. If we're assuming that NetBSD is the only remaining hppa platform of interest, then clearly only one of those is needed, but I don't know which one should be preferred. It appears that both are defined on NetBSD. (FWIW, I know that OpenBSD works on this machine too, or did the last time I tried it. But it probably has the same opinions as NetBSD about predefined macros.) regards, tom lane