Received: from magus.postgresql.org (magus.postgresql.org [87.238.57.229]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E1761EB83EA; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:20:05 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1S0f90-00061B-1e; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:20:03 +0000 Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id q1NKJjNL025096; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:19:45 -0500 (EST) To: Jayashankar K B cc: "pgsql-general@postgresql.org" , "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Disable-spinlocks while compiling postgres 9.1 for ARM Cortex A8 In-reply-to: <1365276B7BDA4C40A519F0B4088230B309710A77@POCITMSEXMB03.LntUniverse.com> References: <1365276B7BDA4C40A519F0B4088230B309710A77@POCITMSEXMB03.LntUniverse.com> Comments: In-reply-to Jayashankar K B message dated "Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:14:30 +0000" Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:19:45 -0500 Message-ID: <25095.1330028385@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Pg-Spam-Score: -0.8 (/) X-Archive-Number: 201202/545 X-Sequence-Number: 185057 Jayashankar K B writes: > Hi All, > I am trying to compile Postgres Source code for ARM cortex A8 architecture. > While compiling, I got an error message which read "selected processor does not support `swpb r4,r4,[r3]' " > One of the Postgres forums at the location "http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/BUG-6331-Cross-compile-error-aborts-Works-if-disable-spinlock-is-used-td5068738.html" > Mentioned that by using -disable-spinlocks, we can overcome the error at the cost of performance. I did the same and it compiled successfully. > But the INSTALL guide in Postgres source code mentioned that I should inform the Postgres community in case I am forced to use -disable spinlocks to let the code compile. > Hence this email. So please suggest me what I should do now. Try this patch: http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=068e08eebbb2204f525647daad3fe15063b77820 BTW, please don't cross-post to multiple PG mailing lists; there's very seldom a good reason to do that. regards, tom lane