=?gb2312?B?zuLRx7fJ?= <wuyf41619(at)hundsun(dot)com> writes:
> add spinlock support on loongarch64.
I wonder if we shouldn't just do that (ie, try to use
__sync_lock_test_and_set) as a generic fallback on any unsupported
architecture. We could get rid of the separate stanza for RISC-V
that way. The main thing that an arch-specific stanza could bring
is knowledge of the best data type width to use for a spinlock;
but I don't see a big problem with defaulting to "int". We can
always add arch-specific stanzas for any machines where that's
shown to be a seriously poor choice.
regards, tom lane