Old source code needed

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

NTPT

NTPT@seznam.cz

over 10 years ago

In reply to: NTPT (#1)

Re: Old source code needed

Thanx for help, I grab the source code that match old cluster fs backup.

However: Should it run fine compiled with recent gcc 4.9.3 ?

while compiled with this gcc , I got a lot of strange errors like

ERROR: could not identify an ordering operator for type name at character
3336
HINT: Use an explicit ordering operator or modify the query.

with \dt or \list or other commands and select.

Hovever compiling it with gcc 3.4.6 and everythig works.

Is it intended (expected) behavior or a compiller bug (Being on Gentoo,
compiller bug scary me a lot).

thanx

---------- Původní zpráva ----------
Od: Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>
Komu: NTPT <NTPT@seznam.cz>, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Datum: 26. 11. 2015 22:49:13
Předmět: Re: [GENERAL] Old source code needed

"On 11/26/2015 01:29 PM, NTPT wrote:

Hi all, I need to find a old source codes for Postgresql9.0 BETA relases.
could You help me ?

http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=tags

Then, say for REL9_0_BETA2 click on commit which will take you to:

http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=dcd52a64bd9d3
baa252a8bea662b08f7780035a1

click on the snapshot link and you will get a postgres*.tar.gz file that
is the code at 9.0beta2

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com"=

Jan de Visser

jan@de-visser.net

over 10 years ago

In reply to: NTPT (#3)

Re: Old source code needed

On 2015-11-27 4:31 AM, NTPT wrote:

Thanx for help, I grab the source code that match old cluster fs
backup.

However: Should it run fine compiled with recent gcc 4.9.3 ?

You realize how old 9.0 is, right? And you understand how nonsensical
your question is? How can you guarantee that code compiles properly on a
compiler which is released years after you write the code?

while compiled with this gcc , I got a lot of strange errors like

ERROR: could not identify an ordering operator for type name at
character 3336
HINT: Use an explicit ordering operator or modify the query.

with \dt or \list or other commands and select.

Hovever compiling it with gcc 3.4.6 and everythig works.

Is it intended (expected) behavior or a compiller bug (Being on
Gentoo, compiller bug scary me a lot).

thanx

jan

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Adrian Klaver

adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

over 10 years ago

In reply to: Jan de Visser (#4)

Re: Old source code needed

On 11/27/2015 06:24 AM, Jan de Visser wrote:

On 2015-11-27 4:31 AM, NTPT wrote:

Thanx for help, I grab the source code that match old cluster fs
backup.

However: Should it run fine compiled with recent gcc 4.9.3 ?

You realize how old 9.0 is, right? And you understand how nonsensical
your question is? How can you guarantee that code compiles properly on a
compiler which is released years after you write the code?

To me nonsensical would be trying to compile newer code using an old
compiler. What the OP did seemed to be in the realm of possibility as I
would think backwards compatibility kicks in.

while compiled with this gcc , I got a lot of strange errors like

ERROR: could not identify an ordering operator for type name at
character 3336
HINT: Use an explicit ordering operator or modify the query.

with \dt or \list or other commands and select

Hovever compiling it with gcc 3.4.6 and everythig works.

Is it intended (expected) behavior or a compiller bug (Being on
Gentoo, compiller bug scary me a lot).

thanx

jan

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Jan de Visser

jan@de-visser.net

over 10 years ago

In reply to: Adrian Klaver (#5)

Re: Old source code needed

On 2015-11-27 9:44 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote:

You realize how old 9.0 is, right? And you understand how nonsensical
your question is? How can you guarantee that code compiles properly on a
compiler which is released years after you write the code?

To me nonsensical would be trying to compile newer code using an old
compiler. What the OP did seemed to be in the realm of possibility as
I would think backwards compatibility kicks in.

Well, maybe. But there's no way to *guarantee* it will work. And
apparently it doesn't.

It's not unheard of - I have some C code which I developed over the last
year or so on gcc 4.9. When I first attempted to compile it on 5.2 it
failed horrible. And there's no real unusual things I'm doing - I didn't
even use C11, just C99.

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Tom Lane

tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us

over 10 years ago

In reply to: Jan de Visser (#6)

Re: Old source code needed

Jan de Visser <jan@de-visser.net> writes:

On 2015-11-27 9:44 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote:

To me nonsensical would be trying to compile newer code using an old
compiler. What the OP did seemed to be in the realm of possibility as
I would think backwards compatibility kicks in.

Well, maybe. But there's no way to *guarantee* it will work. And
apparently it doesn't.

AFAICT, backwards compatibility is not something the gcc boys care about.

I suspect the particular complaint here is related to

Author: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Branch: REL9_1_STABLE Release: REL9_1_10 [649839dd9] 2013-08-21 18:31:48 -0400
Branch: REL9_0_STABLE Release: REL9_0_14 [e9e387a5b] 2013-08-21 18:31:51 -0400
Branch: REL8_4_STABLE Release: REL8_4_18 [8396d230f] 2013-08-21 18:31:54 -0400

Disable -faggressive-loop-optimizations in gcc 4.8+ for pre-9.2 branches.

With this optimization flag enabled, recent versions of gcc can generate
incorrect code that assumes variable-length arrays (such as oidvector)
are actually fixed-length because they're embedded in some larger struct.
The known instance of this problem was fixed in 9.2 and up by commit
8137f2c32322c624e0431fac1621e8e9315202f9 and followon work, which hides
actually-variable-length catalog fields from the compiler altogether.
And we plan to gradually convert variable-length fields to official
"flexible array member" notation over time, which should prevent this type
of bug from reappearing as gcc gets smarter. We're not going to try to
back-port those changes into older branches, though, so apply this
band-aid instead.

Andres Freund

though there are certainly other places that we've had to change because
newer versions of gcc broke them.

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Andres Freund

andres@anarazel.de

over 10 years ago

In reply to: NTPT (#3)

Re: Old source code needed

On 2015-11-27 10:31:03 +0100, NTPT wrote:

Thanx for help,ï¿½ I grab the source codeï¿½ that matchï¿½ old cluster fs backup.

However: Should it run fine compiledï¿½ with recent gcc 4.9.3 ?

while compiled with this gcc , I got a lot of strange errors like

ERROR:ï¿½ could not identify an ordering operator for type name at character
3336
HINT:ï¿½ Use an explicit ordering operator or modify the query.

with \dt or \listï¿½ or otherï¿½ commands and select.

Hovever compiling it with gcc 3.4.6 and everythig works.

Is it intended (expected) behavior or a compiller bug (Being on Gentoo,
compiller bug scary me a lot).

This has been fixed later in the 9.0 branch = but as you want to
checkout a specific tag, that's not goign to help you... What are you
actually trying to do?

Andres

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general