| From: | Reinhard Max <max(at)suse(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: test-and-set for s390x and powerpc64 |
| Date: | 2002-11-05 08:54:00 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0211050948001.25391-100000@wotan.suse.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 at 18:23, Reinhard Max wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 at 12:17, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Why do we need that ppc64 code? It appears identical to the ppc
> > code
The difference is the symbol name ("tas" vs. ".tas") which is needed
because of the different ABIs of ppc and ppc64.
> > (except for missing isync, which means it's broken on multi-CPU
> > boxes).
This was indeed a bug.
> I'll re-check that with the ppc architecture guy here.
... he is now about to write an inlined version that can go into
s_lock.h . I'll send the new patch later on...
cu
Reinhard
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Reinhard Max | 2002-11-05 09:46:53 | Re: Compiler options for plperl |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2002-11-04 23:04:07 | Re: Compiler options for plperl |