At 3:44 PM -0700 5/29/99, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>On Sat, 29 May 1999, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This suggests that none of the beta-testing group uses a machine that
>> doesn't have TEST_AND_SET support. I suppose that's good news about the
>> coverage of s_lock.h, but it makes me worry that the non-TEST_AND_SET
>> code hasn't even been compiled, let alone exercised. Someone ought to
>> build and test a copy with TEST_AND_SET deliberately removed from the
>> port.h file.
>
>MIght this not indicate that that code is, in fact, useless? Designed for
>older OSs that didn't have appropriate support?
No, absolutely not!
If anyone want's to port to a new architecture they shouldn't have to learn
assembly language just to get started. They should be able to make things
just work using semaphores, and then go back and add the TAS routines to
speed things up later.
Signature failed Preliminary Design Review.
Feasibility of a new signature is currently being evaluated.
h.b.hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu
