| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| 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 14:26:51 |
| Message-ID: | CAHyXU0zKJPA_gHFKmqOH8qihj+H39rRL0ePovaX1hb4TBXSvRA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
> On 13.05.2013 15:39, Mark Salter wrote:
>>
>> I used the following patch to add lock support aarch64. It is just a
>> copy of the arm support based on gcc builtins. Postgresql built with
>> this patch passes the various tests.
>
>
> I think this needs an "#ifdef HAVE_GCC_INT_ATOMICS", like the ARM codepath.
I'm starting to wonder why we don't always use gcc atomics if they are
available and assembly implementation is not (any maybe, even if it
is).
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2013-05-13 14:26:53 | MemoryContextAllocHuge(): selectively bypassing MaxAllocSize |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2013-05-13 14:21:27 | Re: Better LWLocks with compare-and-swap (9.4) |