Hi Tom With --build=powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu in the config_opts section of build-farm.conf, the build and the regression were successful.
Well, by the time the decision is made on this, I have enabled only 9.4+ runs on ppc64le. The results from this buildfarm member 'clam' are now being reported. On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > I don't really want to get into an argument about this, but is the > > reason we haven't updated config.guess and config.sub in the past that > > it presents an actual stability risk, or just that nobody's asked > > before? Because the first one is a good reason not to do it now, but > > the second one isn't. > > Well, I see at least one case in the git history where we explicitly > declined to update config.guess/config.sub: > > Author: Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> > Branch: master Release: REL9_3_BR [5c7603c31] 2013-06-04 15:42:02 -0400 > Branch: REL9_2_STABLE Release: REL9_2_5 [612ecf311] 2013-06-04 15:42:21 > -0400 > > Add ARM64 (aarch64) support to s_lock.h. > > Use the same gcc atomic functions as we do on newer ARM chips. > (Basically this is a copy and paste of the __arm__ code block, > but omitting the SWPB option since that definitely won't work.) > > Back-patch to 9.2. The patch would work further back, but we'd also > need to update config.guess/config.sub in older branches to make them > build out-of-the-box, and there hasn't been demand for it. > > Mark Salter > > > More generally, I think "does updating config.guess, in itself, pose > a stability risk" is a false statement of the issue. The real issue is > do we want to start supporting a new platform in 9.1-9.3; that is, IMO > if we accept this request then we are buying into doing *whatever is > needed* to support ppc64le on those branches. Maybe that will stop with > config.guess/config.sub, or maybe it won't. > > Setting this precedent will also make it quite hard to reject future > requests to back-patch support for other new platforms. > > I'm not planning to go to war about this issue either. But I do think > there's a slippery-slope hazard here, and we should be prepared for > the logical consequences of accepting such a request. Or if we're > going to have a policy allowing this request but not every such request, > somebody had better enunciate what that policy is. > > regards, tom lane > > (BTW, so far as direct stability hazards go, I would guess that the > key question is how much version skew can be tolerated between autoconf > and config.guess/config.sub. I have no idea about that; Peter E. might. > But I do note that pre-9.4 branches use an older autoconf version.) > -- Sandeep Thakkar
