From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
Cc: | "Tatsuo Ishii" <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 7.1 vs. 7.2 on AIX 5L |
Date: | 2002-01-14 15:17:18 |
Message-ID: | 5702.1011021438@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> writes:
> The problem is, that the default on AIX is to produce architecture
> independent code (arch=COM). Unfortunately not all AIX architectures
> seem to have these instructions.
AIX does more than one architecture? Hmm, s_lock.h doesn't know that...
> With arch=ppc it works (two lines
> adjusted .globl .tas and .tas:). My worry is, that the Architecture
> book sais that the isync is necessary on SMP. I wonder why that would
> not also apply to LinuxPPC or Apple.
I doubt we've had anyone test on SMP PPC machines, other than Tatsuo's
tests on AIX. Worse, I'd imagine that any failures from a missing sync
instruction would be rare and tough to reproduce. So there may indeed
be a lurking problem here.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-14 15:29:01 | Re: bug in permission handling? |
Previous Message | guard | 2002-01-14 14:56:34 | unicode words |