On 2014-09-19 10:58:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > I don't really see any need to backpatch though, do you?
> Well, I'd make it the same in all branches which have that code, which
> is not very far back is it?
It was already introduced in 9.2 - no idea whether that's "far
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2014-09-19 09:58:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> While it might not be buggy as it stands, I think we should add the "cc"
>> rather than rely on it being implicit. One reason is that people will
>> look at the x86 cases when developing code for other architectures, and
>>
On 2014-09-19 09:58:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2014-09-19 12:00:16 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> But addl sets condition flags. So this really also needs a "cc" clobber?
> >> Or am I missing something?
>
> > What I missed is that x86 has an implied "cc" clobber fo
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2014-09-19 12:00:16 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
>> But addl sets condition flags. So this really also needs a "cc" clobber?
>> Or am I missing something?
> What I missed is that x86 has an implied "cc" clobber for every inline
> assembly statement. So forget that.
Whil
Hi,
On 2014-09-19 12:00:16 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> barrier.h defines memory barriers for x86 as:
> 32bit:
> #define pg_memory_barrier() \
> __asm__ __volatile__ ("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)" : : : "memory")
> 64bit:
> #define pg_memory_barrier() \
> __asm__ _
Hi,
barrier.h defines memory barriers for x86 as:
32bit:
#define pg_memory_barrier() \
__asm__ __volatile__ ("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)" : : : "memory")
64bit:
#define pg_memory_barrier() \
__asm__ __volatile__ ("lock; addl $0,0(%%rsp)" : : : "memory")
But addl
