On Mon, May 04, 2026 at 06:16:47PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Nathan Bossart <[email protected]> writes: >> I'd like to rewrite the comment at the top of the file, too, but haven't >> gotten to that yet. I find it a little misleading, especially because >> we #error if TAS isn't defined. > > No objection in principle to improving that comment, but what did you > have in mind exactly?
I think the way the comment presents the macros gives a potentially misleading impression about what you typically need to do to get a new platform working, and you basically need to read through the whole file to make sense of what's going on. Some of the macros it mentions have a default implementation that we use everywhere (e.g., S_INIT_LOCK), and if you're using gcc, you may be able to just use the __sync_lock_test_and_set versions. If you _did_ need to add a new section for a new platform, you'd probably be more interested in defining slock_t, HAS_TEST_AND_TEST/TAS, S_UNLOCK, SPIN_DELAY, and maybe TAS_SPIN. In fact, you _must_ ensure TAS is defined or else we'll fail to compile. Although as I write this e-mail and think about how exactly I'd rewrite the comment, I grow less confident about doing so... -- nathan
