Re: Going for "all green" buildfarm results
Mark Wong wrote:
Now why are we failing on 7.3? What version of flex do you have? If
it's too modern we'll just need to take 7.3 out of the cobra and
stoat rotations - we'd really only make supercritical fixes on that
branch these days.Flex is 2.5.33 on both systems. I'm assuming that's too modern so
I'll go ahead and stop building 7.3 for those systems.
You could be lucky the others build. I believe our supported version is
still 2.5.4, which is what all my linux systems have.
cheers
andrew
Import Notes
Reply to msg id not found: 449AC61D.1060104@osdl.orgReference msg id not found: 448229C7.3010900@dunslane.netReference msg id not found: 44903185.3080208@osdl.orgReference msg id not found: 44981DDE.1010106@dunslane.netReference msg id not found: 449AB5E9.9000301@osdl.orgReference msg id not found: 449AB962.7050409@dunslane.netReference msg id not found: 449AC217.8000801@osdl.orgReference msg id not found: 449AC579.2030302@dunslane.netReference msg id not found: 449AC61D.1060104@osdl.org
On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 12:52 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I believe our supported version is still 2.5.4, which is
what all my linux systems have.
Its not clear to me why some people have such antipathy toward recent
flex releases, but if our only supported flex version is 2.5.4, I think
this should be documented: the current installation instructions only
say that "Flex 2.5.4 or later" should be used for CVS builds.
-Neil
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 12:52 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I believe our supported version is still 2.5.4, which is
what all my linux systems have.
Its not clear to me why some people have such antipathy toward recent
flex releases, but if our only supported flex version is 2.5.4, I think
this should be documented: the current installation instructions only
say that "Flex 2.5.4 or later" should be used for CVS builds.
Some of them appear to be actively broken :-(. If we knew exactly which
ones they were, we'd document that, but I don't think we have a handle
on why some 2.5.x flexes barf and others don't.
regards, tom lane
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
Mark Wong wrote:
Flex is 2.5.33 on both systems. I'm assuming that's too modern so
I'll go ahead and stop building 7.3 for those systems.
You could be lucky the others build. I believe our supported version is
still 2.5.4, which is what all my linux systems have.
I checked into this and it seems that what we'd need to do is backport
some subset of these 7.4 changes:
2003-09-13 22:18 tgl
* contrib/seg/: Makefile, README.seg, seg.c, seg.sql.in,
segparse.y, segscan.l, expected/seg.out: Make contrib/seg work with
flex 2.5.31. Fix it up to have a real btree operator class, too,
since in PG 7.4 you can't GROUP without one.
2003-09-13 21:52 tgl
* contrib/cube/: Makefile, README.cube, cube.c, cube.sql.in,
cubeparse.y, cubescan.l, expected/cube.out: Make contrib/cube work
with flex 2.5.31. Fix it up to have a real btree operator class,
too, since in PG 7.4 you can't GROUP without one.
2003-09-14 14:44 tgl
* contrib/: tsearch/parser.l, tsearch2/wordparser/parser.l:
Persuade tsearch/tsearch2 to work (or at least pass their
regression tests) when using flex 2.5.31. The fix is to *not* try
to use palloc and pfree for allocations within the lexer; when you
do that, the yy_buffer_stack gets freed at inopportune times. The
code is already set up to do manual deallocation, so I see no
particular advantage to using palloc anyway.
This is probably not worth doing. We're really only maintaining 7.3 for
legacy platforms (the only one I care about is RHEL3 ;-)) and a legacy
platform is likely to have an old flex. It's a tad annoying to lose
buildfarm coverage on it though ...
regards, tom lane