Re: [HACKERS] S_LOCK() change produces error...

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org (The Hermit Hacker)
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] S_LOCK() change produces error...
Date: 1998-01-18 02:59:43
Message-ID: 199801180259.VAA00276@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>
>
> I installed some patches today for the univel port, and one of the changes
> did the following to include/storage/s_lock.h:
>
> 302c318
> < __asm__("xchgb %0,%1": "=q"(_res), "=m"(*lock):"0"(0x1)); \
> ---
> > __asm__("lock xchgb %0,%1": "=q"(_res), "=m"(*lock):"0"(0x1)); \
>

I guess this is a multiple cpu modifier for asm, and most people don't
run multiple cpus. I guess our gcc's call it an error, rather than
ignore it. I think we need an OS-specific ifdef there. We can't have
Univel changing the normal i386 stuff that works so well now.

--
Bruce Momjian
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message The Hermit Hacker 1998-01-18 03:05:54 Re: [HACKERS] S_LOCK() change produces error...
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1998-01-18 02:56:22 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [QUESTIONS] Business cases