Re: remove dead ports?

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I have no position on whether those operating systems are dead enough
> to warrant removing support, but on a related point, I would like it
> if we could get rid of as many spinlock implementations as are
> applicable only to platforms that are effectively defunct.  I'm
> suspicious of s_lock.h's support for National Semiconductor 32K,
> Renesas' M32R, Renesas' SuperH, UNIVEL, SINIX / Reliant UNIX,
> Nextstep, and Sun3, all of which are either on your list above, or
> stuff I've never heard of.  I have no problem keeping whatever people
> are still using, but it would be nice to eliminate anything that's
> actually dead for the reasons you state.

The Renesas implementations were added pretty darn recently, so I think
there are users for those.  The others you mention seem dead to me.
On the other hand, exactly how much is it costing us to leave those
sections of s_lock.h in there?  It's not like we have any plans to
redefine the spinlock interfaces.
        regards, tom lane