| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | 吴亚飞 <wuyf41619(at)hundsun(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: spinlock support on loongarch64 |
| Date: | 2022-11-02 23:22:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20221102232216.l5d2r5ybfbzwsfwz@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2022-11-02 17:37:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2022-11-02 14:55:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> After actually testing (by removing the ARM stanza on a macOS machine),
> >> it seems that placement doesn't work, because of the default definition
> >> of S_UNLOCK at the bottom of the "#if defined(__GNUC__)" stuff. Putting
> >> it inside that test works, and seems like it should be fine, since this
> >> is a GCC-ism.
>
> > Looks reasonable. I tested it on x86-64 by disabling that section and it
> > works.
>
> Thanks for looking.
>
> > I wonder if it's worth keeing the full copy of this in the arm section? We
> > could just define SPIN_DELAY() for aarch64?
>
> I thought about that, but given the increasing popularity of ARM
> I bet that that stanza is going to accrete more special-case knowledge
> over time. It's probably simplest to keep it separate.
WFM.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-11-02 23:43:46 | Re: perl 5.36, C99, -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wshadow=compatible-local |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-11-02 21:37:04 | Re: spinlock support on loongarch64 |