Re: Spinlocks and compiler/memory barriers

On 2014-07-06 15:02:21 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >>> Since we have a Sun Studio machine in the buildfarm, we shouldn't give
> >>> up on SPARC completely, but maybe we should only add the cases for
> >>> sparcv8+ and above? That at least has some chance of getting tested.
> >>
> >> That we have code for sparcv7 is ridiculous btw. Sparcv8 (not 8+/9) is
> >> from 1992. v7/sun4c been dropped from solaris 8 if I see that correctly.
> >>
> >> I agree that v8 (in contrast to v8+ aka v9 in 32bit mode) support has to
> >> go as well. I'd personally vote for backpatching a note to
> >> installation.sgml saying that it's probably not working, and not do
> >> anything else there. That means we also should replace the ldstub by cas
> >> in the the gcc inline assembly - but we have buildfarm members for that,
> >> so it's not too bad.
> >
> > If you want to do that, it's fine with me. What I would do is:
> >
> > - Back-patch the addition of the sparcv8+ stuff all the way. If
> > anyone's running anything older, let them complain...
> > - Remove the special case for MIPS without gcc intrinsics only in
> > master, leaving the back-branches broken. If anyone cares, let them
> > complain...
> > - Nothing else.
>
> I've gone ahead and done the second of these things.

Thanks.

> Andres, do you want to go take a stab at fixing the SPARC stuff?

Will do, will probably take me till thursday to come up with the brain
cycles.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services