--On Thursday, September 11, 2003 23:42:53 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:Yeah. I **DO** have SCO's ear on it, but I don't know how far I'll get, plus there areLooking 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?
TONS of pre-whenever-we-get-it-fixed out there.
that's reasonable. At least until 64-bit UnixWare. :-)
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.
(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
Description: PGP signature