From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] S_LOCK() change produces error... |
Date: | 1998-01-18 03:05:54 |
Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.3.96.980117230220.259I-100000@thelab.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 17 Jan 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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.
Actually, I think that the patch was meant to improve...if you look at the
code, he put all the Univel stuff inside of its own #ifdef...see around
line 297 in include/storage/s_lock.h and you'll see what I mean.
He seems to have only added a 'lock' to the beginning of the __asm__,
which is what is breaking things under FreeBSD, but unless it affects every
other port, I'm loath to remove it without just throwing in a FreeBSD #ifdef
in there...
Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-01-18 03:37:19 | Re: [HACKERS] S_LOCK() change produces error... |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-01-18 02:59:43 | Re: [HACKERS] S_LOCK() change produces error... |