From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | stange(at)rentec(dot)com, pgsql-ports(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: solaris build problem with Sun compilers |
Date: | 2006-05-12 18:22:18 |
Message-ID: | 12812.1147458138@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-ports |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> [ shrug... ] The person who submitted the solaris_sparc.s change failed
>> to provide any evidence that it was anything but cosmetic, so I didn't
>> worry about changing the equivalent gcc code. If there's actually a
>> performance win, please cite chapter and verse. Also, shouldn't we be
>> worrying about breaking older Sparc chips? Does CAS go all the way
>> back?
> I don't think it is a good idea to be using different ASM instructions
> based for different compilers --- they should be the same.
Yeah, and if I'd been applying the patch, the sparc version would have
stayed at ldstub. Like I say, there was no compelling evidence offered
for changing it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alan Stange | 2006-05-12 18:57:52 | Re: solaris build problem with Sun compilers |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-05-12 18:14:47 | Re: solaris build problem with Sun compilers |