Re: Sun performance - Major discovery! - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Jeff
Subject Re: Sun performance - Major discovery!
Date
Msg-id Pine.BSF.4.44.0310091044450.69724-100000@torgo.978.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Sun performance - Major discovery!  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Sun performance - Major discovery!  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-performance
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:

>
> So you want -fast added as default for non-gcc Solaris?  You mentioned
> there is a warning generated that we have to deal with?
>

 Yeah, suncc generates a warning for _every_ file that says:
Warning: -xarch=native has been explicitly specified, or implicitly
specified by a macro option, -xarch=native on this architecture implies
-xarch=v8plusa which generates code that does not run on pre-UltraSPARC
processors

And then I get various warnings here and there...

lots of "statement not reached" as in ecpg's type.c module
The offending code is a big switch statement like:
                case ECPGt_bool:
                        return ("ECPGt_bool");
                        break;

And then any functiont aht uses PG_RETURN_NULL generates " warning:
end-of-loop code not reached"

and a bunch of "constant promoted to unsigned long long"


And some places such as in fe-exec.c have code like this:
        buflen = strlen(strtext);       /* will shrink, also we discover
if

where strtext is an unsigned char * which generates warning: argument #1
is incompatible with prototype:

and then various other type mismatches here and there.

I skimmed through the manpage.. it doesn't look like we can supress
these..


Not sure we want it to look like we have bad code if someone uses cc.
perhaps issue a ./configure notice or something?

gcc compiles things fine.


--
Jeff Trout <jeff@jefftrout.com>
http://www.jefftrout.com/
http://www.stuarthamm.net/



pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Sullivan
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Sun performance - Major discovery!
Next
From: Kaarel
Date:
Subject: Re: Linux filesystem shootout