Hi,
On 2022-07-06 14:21:50 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> --- a/src/backend/port/hpux/tas.c.template
> +++ /dev/null
> @@ -1,40 +0,0 @@
> -/*
> - * tas() for HPPA.
> - *
> - * To generate tas.s using this template:
> - * 1. cc +O2 -S -c tas.c
> - * 2. edit tas.s:
> - * - replace the LDW with LDCWX
> - * 3. install as src/backend/port/tas/hpux_hppa.s.
> - *
> - * For details about the LDCWX instruction, see the "Precision
> - * Architecture and Instruction Reference Manual" (09740-90014 of June
> - * 1987), p. 5-38.
> - */
> -
> -int
> -tas(lock)
> - int *lock; /* LDCWX is a word instruction */
> -{
> - /*
> - * LDCWX requires that we align the "semaphore" to a 16-byte
> - * boundary. The actual datum is a single word (4 bytes).
> - */
> - lock = ((uintptr_t) lock + 15) & ~15;
> -
> - /*
> - * The LDCWX instruction atomically clears the target word and
> - * returns the previous value. Hence, if the instruction returns
> - * 0, someone else has already acquired the lock before we tested
> - * it (i.e., we have failed).
> - *
> - * Notice that this means that we actually clear the word to set
> - * the lock and set the word to clear the lock. This is the
> - * opposite behavior from the SPARC LDSTUB instruction. For some
> - * reason everything that H-P does is rather baroque...
> - */
> - if (*lock) { /* this generates the LDW */
> - return(0); /* success */
> - }
> - return(1); /* failure */
> -}
Are these comments retained elsewhere? It's confusing enough that I think we
should make sure they're somewhere until we remove hppa support...
> -#if defined(__ia64__) || defined(__ia64)
> -/*
> - * Intel Itanium, gcc or Intel's compiler.
Hm. Personally I'd do HPUX removal separately from IA64 removal.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
