Re: Spinlocks and compiler/memory barriers

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.

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

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company