Re: [HACKERS] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Looking at the code, I wonder if we already have folks not using
> > spinlocks, and not even knowing it.  I don't think problem reports will
> > be limited to new platforms.
>
> Very likely --- I heard from someone recently who was trying to run
> HPUX/Itanium.  After we got past the hard-wired assumption that HPUX
> == HPPA, it was still giving lousy performance for lack of spinlocks.
> I like the part of the patch that is in-your-face about that.
>
> > I just learned from Larry that Unixware defines intel as i386, not
> > __i386 or __i386__, at least of the native SCO compiler that he uses.
>
> [blink]  Namespace infringement 'r us, huh?
>
> > I am going to test for __cpu, __cpu__, and cpu on non-gcc compiler for
> > consistency.  It is only done in one place in the patch, so that should
> > be good.
>
> Please, only the first two.  Make the Unixware template add __i386__.
> Don't add assumptions about valid user-namespace symbols.

Roger!

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073