Re: Remove last traces of HPPA support

From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Remove last traces of HPPA support
Date: 2024-07-29 23:16:18
Message-ID: 7d7294a6-f07b-46ad-bb63-a68cd8cd899c@iki.fi
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 30/07/2024 00:50, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 8:09 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> Here are some experimental patches to try out some ideas mentioned
>>> upthread, that are approximately unlocked by that cleanup.
>>
>> FWIW, I'm good with getting rid of --disable-spinlocks and
>> --disable-atomics. That's a fair amount of code and needing to
>> support it causes problems, as you say. I am very much less
>> excited about ripping out our spinlock and/or atomics code in favor
>> of <stdatomic.h>; I just don't see the gain there, and I do see risk
>> in ceding control of the semantics and performance of those
>> primitives.
>
> OK, <stdatomic.h> part on ice for now. Here's an update of the rest,
> this time also removing the barrier fallbacks as discussed in the LTO
> thread[1].

Looks good to me.

> I guess we should also consider reimplementing the spinlock on the
> atomic API, but I can see that Andres is poking at spinlock code right
> now so I'll keep out of his way...
>
> Side issue: I noticed via CI failure when I tried to require
> read/write barriers to be provided (a choice I backed out of), that on
> MSVC we seem to be using the full memory barrier fallback for those.
> Huh? For x86, I think they should be using pg_compiler_barrier() (no
> code gen, just prevent reordering), not pg_pg_memory_barrier(), no?

Agreed, arch-x86.h is quite clear on that.

> Perhaps I'm missing something but I suspect we might be failing to
> include arch-x86.h on that compiler when we should... maybe it needs
> to detect _M_AMD64 too?

Aha, yes I think that's it. Apparently, __x86_64__ is not defined on
MSVC. To prove that, I added garbage to the "#ifdef __x86_64__" guarded
block in atomics.h. The compilation passes on MSVC, but not on other
platforms: https://cirrus-ci.com/build/6310061188841472.

That means that we're not getting the x86-64 instructions in
src/port/pg_crc32c_sse42.c on MSVC either.

I think we should do:

#ifdef _M_AMD64
#define __x86_64__
#endif

somewhere, perhaps in src/include/port/win32.h.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
Neon (https://neon.tech)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Erik Wienhold 2024-07-29 23:36:55 Re: psql: Add leakproof field to \dAo+ meta-command results
Previous Message Sami Imseih 2024-07-29 23:15:49 Re: Restart pg_usleep when interrupted