--On Thursday, September 11, 2003 23:42:53 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?


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

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to