Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

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.

            regards, tom lane