Tom Lane [2011-12-19 10:25 -0500]:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> > On 19.12.2011 16:31, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Martin Pitt<mpitt@debian.org> wrote:
> >>> I agree. How about a patch like this? It uses builtin atomics if
> >>> available, and falls back to the custom implementations if not.
>
> >> -1. Absent some evidence that gcc's implementations are superior to
> >> ours, I think we should not change stuff that works now. That's
> >> likely to lead to subtle bugs that are hard to find and perhaps
> >> dependent on the exact compiler version used.
>
> > Ok, we're in disagreement on that then. I don't feel very strongly about
> > it, let's see what others think.
>
> I agree with Robert. There is no evidence whatsoever that this would
> be an improvement, and unless somebody cares to provide such evidence,
> we shouldn't risk changing code that's so full of portability hazards.
OK, with you and Robert preferring this as a fallback instead of a
preferred way, and with Heikki's "I don't care much", I'll rework the
patch.
Thanks,
Martin
--
Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org)
