Re: add darwin/osxpb support to cvs - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: add darwin/osxpb support to cvs
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.21.0010231928520.787-100000@peter.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to add darwin/osxpb support to cvs  (Bruce Hartzler <bruceh@mail.utexas.edu>)
List pgsql-patches
I'll take this and integrate it.  Please, nobody commit this right now,
I'm messing with things...

Bruce Hartzler writes:

> this patch and tar archive will add support for the darwin/osxpb to the current cvs tree.
>
> a couple things to note:
>
> - unpack the tar archive in pgsql/
>
> - the config.guess and config.sub files have been updated by apple to support their new os. i don't think these
changeshave been folded back in to the main archive yet (at least they aren't in the pgsql cvs yet). these need to be
copiedover from /usr/libexec/config.* in order to obtain the correct os (e.g. powerpc-apple-darwin1.2 on PB). 
>
> - the diff only patches configure.in so autoconf needs to be rerun
>
> - the situation with darwin's implementation of sysv semaphores is in progress at the moment (the shm/ipc support
*is*there and seems to work fine). so this patch uses HAVE_SYS_SEM_H to conditionally build the src/backend/port/darwin
semaphorecode (borrowed from qnx4). I've followed the BeOS example of including the necessary sem.h declarations in
src/include/port/darwin.h.this is rather messy at the moment and can be dumped once apple releases a version of PB with
sysvsem built into the kernel. 
>
> - i'm a bit confused over the __powerpc__ tas function in s_lock.c (there i assume for the ppc-linux port). it
doesn'tcompile at all on darwin so i just added a version that does work on darwin under DARWIN_OS. it's potentially a
bitconfusing and s_lock.c should probably be changed to include a better conditional. 
>
> bruce
>
>
>

--
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/


pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Hartzler
Date:
Subject: Re: add darwin/osxpb support to cvs
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: binary operators on integers