| From: | Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com>, "''''pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org' ' ' '" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: LWLock/ShmemIndex startup question |
| Date: | 2004-01-13 16:38:51 |
| Message-ID: | 40041F1B.4070904@colorfullife.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> writes:
>
>
>>Or, maybe we'll just use the tas() implementation that already exists for
>>__i386__/__x86_64__ in s_lock.h. How did I miss that?
>>Move along. Nothing to see here.
>>
>>
>
>Actually, I was expecting you to complain that the s_lock.h coding is
>gcc-specific. Which compilers do we need to support on Windows?
>
>
I think intel's compiler supports the gcc syntax. At least the Linux
version can compile the Linux kernel.
MSVC has it's own syntax that is very primitive, and AFAIK not supported
by the 64-bit windows versions. The AMD64 version definitively doesn't
support inline assembly at all.
What are the chances for Win64 support? sizeof(unsigned long) remains 4,
sizeof(void*) is 8.
--
Manfred
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-01-13 16:47:05 | Re: LWLock/ShmemIndex startup question |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-01-13 14:57:05 | Re: LWLock/ShmemIndex startup question |