Re: [PATCHES] [PATCH] sh: Add support Renesas SuperH

2008-05-09 Thread Bruce Momjian
Where are we on this? --- Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> +#if defined(__sh__) /* Renesas SuperH */ > > > Do they have any longer form of that macro? > > I looked into the

Re: [PATCHES] [PATCH] sh: Add support Renesas SuperH

2008-04-12 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> +#if defined(__sh__) /* Renesas SuperH */ > Do they have any longer form of that macro? I looked into the gcc sources, and the answer seems to be "no" :-(. So we're stuck with __sh__. I'm still pretty skeptical about the adequacy of the

Re: [PATCHES] [PATCH] sh: Add support Renesas SuperH

2008-04-05 Thread Tom Lane
Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > + __asm__ __volatile__( > + "tas.b @%1\n\t" > + "movt %0\n\t" > + "xor#1,%0" > +:"=z"(_res) > +:"r"(lock) > +:"t","memory"); Another question: this asm declaration ign

Re: [PATCHES] [PATCH] sh: Add support Renesas SuperH

2008-04-05 Thread Tom Lane
Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > +#if defined(__sh__) /* Renesas SuperH */ Do they have any longer form of that macro? This one seems dangerously likely to trigger on unrelated systems. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patch