>   >> well, right?  I compile alot on an alphapca56-* machine and the compile
>   >> will fail without it unless I add a --host= configure option otherwise.
>   >> Plus, there are alot of these Alphas out there now, so I wanted to make
>   >> sure all of them were covered.  The alphapca57-class should also cover the
>   >> new DS20's, btw, so we're set for the future as well...
> 
> The full patch is attached.  I see that there is (in beta3) now a comment
> in src/template/linux_alpha about removing -O2, but it is not, in fact,
> removed.

Done.  Removed -O2 for linux_alpha and made it -O.  I can not make the
other changes because that is generated by GNU autoconf.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Wed, 9 Jun 1999 08:39:08 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [PORTS] Anyone working on linux Alpha?
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Done.  Removed -O2 for linux_alpha and made it -O.  I can not make the
> other changes because that is generated by GNU autoconf.

config.sub and config.guess are not auto-generated.

What we have already done a couple of times is to apply suggested
fixes to our current copies of these files, but to ask the submitter
to send the bug report to the GNU folks as well (autoconf@gnu.org
and bug-gnu-utils@prep.ai.mit.edu) so that it gets into future GNU
releases.  We do not want to maintain a divergent version of these
files.

I think someone remarked a few days ago that they had access to a
more up-to-date version of the config scripts than was present in
the last Autoconf release (2.13).  Maybe we should try to grab the
latest GNU sources of these files?

			regards, tom lane

Wed, 09 Jun 1999 10:48:22 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] Anyone working on linux Alpha? 
On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Tom Lane wrote:

> Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Done.  Removed -O2 for linux_alpha and made it -O.  I can not make the
> > other changes because that is generated by GNU autoconf.
> 
> config.sub and config.guess are not auto-generated.
> 
> What we have already done a couple of times is to apply suggested
> fixes to our current copies of these files, but to ask the submitter
> to send the bug report to the GNU folks as well (autoconf@gnu.org
> and bug-gnu-utils@prep.ai.mit.edu) so that it gets into future GNU
> releases.  We do not want to maintain a divergent version of these
> files.
> 
> I think someone remarked a few days ago that they had access to a
> more up-to-date version of the config scripts than was present in
> the last Autoconf release (2.13).  Maybe we should try to grab the
> latest GNU sources of these files?

Considering that we are pretty much requiring the use of 2.13, this does
make sense...

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 


Wed, 9 Jun 1999 13:22:24 -0300 (ADT)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] Anyone working on linux Alpha? 