Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Yes, we could do just the configure warning, then plaster tests into the > > port files to try to hit all the opteron/itanium cases. I am a little > > concerned that this might throw up a bunch of problem cases that we will > > patching for a while. > > Probably so --- but we'd only be breaking new platforms that people are > starting to use, not old ones that might not be getting tested > regularly.
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. > Understand that I'm not dead set against applying this patch for 7.4. > (On a code-cleanliness point of view I favor it.) What I want is some > open discussion about the risks and benefits before we decide. Sure, and I am not pushing the patch. I am just saying it would have been ideal a few weeks ago --- I am not sure if we are worse off with or without it. 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. What the code used to do is define NEED_I386_TAS_ASM unconditionally on some platforms (negating the need to test for a compiler symbol) or test for each platform compiler symbol (and not test all possible ways it could be specified), like FreeBSD did. That's why things are so messy. 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. -- 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 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
