Tom,

Here's the output of ccsym, hope it gives you something to
work with.

Keith.


[postgres@sparclinux src]$ tools/ccsym
__GNUC__=2
__GNUC_MINOR__=7
__ELF__
unix
sparc
linux
__ELF__
__unix__
__sparc__
__linux__
__unix
__sparc
__linux
system=unix
system=posix
cpu=sparc
machine=sparc
[postgres@sparclinux src]$ 

Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
> 
> > Things were broken for int8 on SPARC/Linux, showing a regression test
> > failure.
> > 
> > Since making your suggested change (removing "&& defined(i386)") I'm
> > getting a "pass" on the int8 tests.
> > 
> > The platform is SPARCstation IPX, Redhat 4.2.
> > PostgreSQL (latest CVS).
> > GCC 2.7.2.1.
> 
> OK, great. Do you have a suggestion for a pre-defined compiler value I
> can check? Is "sparc" or "__sparc" defined? On my machine I can run
>   gcc -v
> which tells me where to look for specs, and in that file is a line of
> "predefines". I think that there is another way to check this, but I've
> forgotten how.
> 
> I wonder if we can try enabling int8's for all gcc compilers? The only
> machines that might break on are other 64-bit machines (like some
> SGI's?).
> 
>                      - Tom
> 


Sun, 16 Aug 1998 17:53:29 +0100 (BST)
Keith Parks <emkxp01@mtcc.demon.co.uk>
Re: [HACKERS] int8 type -- call for porting results!