Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Does this say that Darwin on something other than PPC doesn't have > > spinlocks? Is that going to hit a spinlock define, or fall through? > > It says that darwin.h is broken, and always has been, for non-PPC > builds. Since there is no non-PPC Darwin (afaik), this is cosmetic. > Keep in mind that the argument here is exactly over whether we should > be fixing cosmetic issues right now. > > > Also, look at NEED_I386_TAS_ASM: It is used only by SCO compilers, > > though it is defined for all Intel platforms. The s_lock.h gcc test > > already tests __i386__. It really doesn't do anything on non-SCO > > compilers, and non-SCO compilers are better testing for i386 anyway. > > <shrug> Again, we were asking you what it would take to fix > Opteron/Itanium. Not to clean up cosmetic issues that have never caused > any problem before. > > > Let me also add that some slock_t typedef's didn't match the assembly > > code. For example, __alpha_ on netbsd.h had slock_t defined as > > "unsigned long", while in linux.h it was "long int". I assumed the > > alpha was the correct one, but clearly they should be the same because > > they use the same assembly code. > > As long as it's the right width, whether the code thinks it's signed or > not isn't gonna matter. We don't do any comparisons on spinlocks, > except maybe zero/notzero.
My point is we don't know how many of these platforms are already using non-spinlock code, but we will find out in 7.4, and we should find out because those folks are getting poor performance. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
