Re: Better LWLocks with compare-and-swap (9.4) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

> diff --git a/configure.in b/configure.in
> index 4ea5699..ff8470e 100644
> --- a/configure.in
> +++ b/configure.in
> @@ -1445,17 +1445,6 @@ fi
>  AC_CHECK_FUNCS([strtoll strtoq], [break])
>  AC_CHECK_FUNCS([strtoull strtouq], [break])
>
> -AC_CACHE_CHECK([for builtin locking functions], pgac_cv_gcc_int_atomics,
> -[AC_TRY_LINK([],
> -  [int lock = 0;
> -   __sync_lock_test_and_set(&lock, 1);
> -   __sync_lock_release(&lock);],
> -  [pgac_cv_gcc_int_atomics="yes"],
> -  [pgac_cv_gcc_int_atomics="no"])])
> -if test x"$pgac_cv_gcc_int_atomics" = x"yes"; then
> -  AC_DEFINE(HAVE_GCC_INT_ATOMICS, 1, [Define to 1 if you have __sync_lock_test_and_set(int *) and friends.])
> -fi
> -

Careful here --- s_lock.h has some code conditional on
HAVE_GCC_INT_ATOMICS which your patch is not touching, yet it is
removing the definition, unless I'm misreading.

--
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services