On 2013-10-13 11:34:42 +0200, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > I think we should remove support for the following architectures: > > - superH > > This one was contributed just a year or two ago, if memory serves, > which suggests that somebody out there cares about it. OTOH, if > they still care, we could insist they provide whatever atomic ops > we want to depend on.
It was 2009 - aac3c301b5e8178841e5749b3657c1a639ba06c1 . I haven't yet verified if gcc's atomics support is acceptable for the platform (checkout is running for the last 3h...). If it's supported, falling back to that seems easy enough. > > - PA-RISC. I think Tom was the remaining user there? Maybe just !gcc. > > Until pretty recently, there was a PA-RISC machine (not mine) in the > buildfarm. I don't see it in the list today though. In any case, > HP's compiler has always been a PITA, so no objection to requiring gcc > for this platform. The reason I'd like to generally get rid of PA-RISC is that it's the only platform that doesn't seem to have any form of compare and swap. GCC should provide fallbacks - with some warnings - using spinlocks instead but I am afraid people will start doing things like atomic operations in signal handlers that won't be noticed and will be a PITA to debug. Having read a fair amount of assembler looking at this I have to say, anybody thinking LL/SC architectures are neat... Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers