Re: lock support for aarch64

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>
Cc: Mark Salter <msalter(at)redhat(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: lock support for aarch64
Date: 2013-05-13 15:53:48
Message-ID: 5088.1368460428@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> writes:
> On 13.05.2013 18:14, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Couldn't we just do
>> -#if defined(__arm__) || defined(__arm)
>> +#if defined(__arm__) || defined(__arm) || defined(__aarch64__)

> That would imply falling back to swpb instruction also on aarch64, which
> won't work.

It doesn't work on current ARM32 chips either, but no one has complained
about the existing coding. At least on ARM64 there'd be a likelihood
that you'd get an assembler error rather than an executable that crashes
at launch.

I suppose we could consider adding

#ifdef __aarch64__
#error ...
#endif

in the section for not-HAVE_GCC_INT_ATOMICS, but I'm doubtful it's
worth the trouble.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2013-05-13 16:10:04 Re: Parallel Sort
Previous Message Tom Lane 2013-05-13 15:48:44 Re: erroneous restore into pg_catalog schema