Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Looking at the code, I wonder if we already have folks not using
> spinlocks, and not even knowing it. I don't think problem reports will
> be limited to new platforms.
Very likely --- I heard from someone recently who was trying to run
HPUX/Itanium. After we got past the hard-wired assumption that HPUX
== HPPA, it was still giving lousy performance for lack of spinlocks.
I like the part of the patch that is in-your-face about that.
> I just learned from Larry that Unixware defines intel as i386, not
> __i386 or __i386__, at least of the native SCO compiler that he uses.
[blink] Namespace infringement 'r us, huh?
> I am going to test for __cpu, __cpu__, and cpu on non-gcc compiler for
> consistency. It is only done in one place in the patch, so that should
> be good.
Please, only the first two. Make the Unixware template add __i386__.
Don't add assumptions about valid user-namespace symbols.
regards, tom lane
