Updating config.guess/config.sub for ppc64le

Christoph Berg <cb@df7cb.de> writes:

to support ppc64le, config.guess needs to be updated. The attached
patch is what was reported to work for Ubuntu.

Our normal procedure is

o update config.guess and config.sub at the start of beta
(from http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/config)

(memo to self: this better happen today). Is that patch just subbing
in the latest upstream scripts, or is it doing something else?

regards, tom lane

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

Re: Tom Lane 2014-05-10 <27476.1399729986@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Christoph Berg <cb@df7cb.de> writes:

to support ppc64le, config.guess needs to be updated. The attached
patch is what was reported to work for Ubuntu.

Our normal procedure is

o update config.guess and config.sub at the start of beta
(from http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/config)

(memo to self: this better happen today). Is that patch just subbing
in the latest upstream scripts, or is it doing something else?

It's just updating to whatever version was current at the time the
problem was popping up. I should have mentioned that, but I figured
you'd probably go for the upstream version anyway... :)

Thanks for the update.

Christoph
--
cb@df7cb.de | http://www.df7cb.de/

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

Re: Tom Lane 2014-05-10 <27476.1399729986@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Christoph Berg <cb@df7cb.de> writes:

to support ppc64le, config.guess needs to be updated. The attached
patch is what was reported to work for Ubuntu.

Our normal procedure is

o update config.guess and config.sub at the start of beta
(from http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/config)

(memo to self: this better happen today). Is that patch just subbing
in the latest upstream scripts, or is it doing something else?

Fwiw, shouldn't that also happen in back branches?

Updating config.* there gives you portability to new architectures for
free - and there should be no risk of breaking anything.

Christoph
--
cb@df7cb.de | http://www.df7cb.de/

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

Christoph Berg <cb@df7cb.de> writes:

Re: Tom Lane 2014-05-10 <27476.1399729986@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Our normal procedure is
o update config.guess and config.sub at the start of beta
(from http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/config)

Fwiw, shouldn't that also happen in back branches?

No, we are not in the habit of back-patching such changes, at least
not automatically. I'd be willing to consider it once the new scripts
have survived a beta-testing cycle ... however, a look at our commit
logs shows we have never actually updated config.guess/config.sub in
any back branch.

Updating config.* there gives you portability to new architectures for
free - and there should be no risk of breaking anything.

The policy of not back-patching dates back to circa 2000, when new
config scripts *routinely* broke things due to changes in what they
printed on some machines (again, there's lots of evidence on this point
in our commit history). Perhaps that's less of a concern nowadays.
Still, there seems to be zero field demand for doing this.

As for "new architectures for free", nope --- spinlock assembly code
is usually the gating factor for that, not the config scripts.

regards, tom lane

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