Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> [ shrug... ] The person who submitted the solaris_sparc.s change failed
>> to provide any evidence that it was anything but cosmetic, so I didn't
>> worry about changing the equivalent gcc code. If there's actually a
>> performance win, please cite chapter and verse. Also, shouldn't we be
>> worrying about breaking older Sparc chips? Does CAS go all the way
>> back?
> I don't think it is a good idea to be using different ASM instructions
> based for different compilers --- they should be the same.
Yeah, and if I'd been applying the patch, the sparc version would have
stayed at ldstub. Like I say, there was no compelling evidence offered
for changing it.
regards, tom lane
