Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

--On Thursday, September 11, 2003 23:42:53 -0400 Tom Lane
<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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?
Yeah.  I **DO** have SCO's ear on it, but I don't know how far I'll get,
plus there are
TONS of pre-whenever-we-get-it-fixed out there.


>
>> 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.
that's reasonable.  At least until 64-bit UnixWare. :-)

(announced at SCOForum).


>
>             regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
>                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
>



--
Larry Rosenman                     http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812                 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749