Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hbQNu-0002g6-Gf for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 14:07:22 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hbQNt-0004B5-2B for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 14:07:21 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hbQNs-0004Ay-Nr for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 14:07:20 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hbQNq-0001uq-HA for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 14:07:19 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x5DE7F0t007750; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 10:07:15 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: wzssyqa@gmail.com cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: BUG #15844: MIPS: remove .set mips2 in s_lock.h to fix r6 build In-reply-to: <15844-8f62fe7e163939b3@postgresql.org> References: <15844-8f62fe7e163939b3@postgresql.org> Comments: In-reply-to PG Bug reporting form message dated "Tue, 11 Jun 2019 04:39:35 -0000" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <7748.1560434835.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 10:07:15 -0400 Message-ID: <7749.1560434835@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk PG Bug reporting form writes: > MIPS r6 changes the encoding of LL/SC instruction, > while the .set mips2 will force assembler to generate > old encoding. > This patch can fix this problem. So I have a bunch of questions about this patch. 1. What problem is this actually solving? We have what I think are reasonably modern MIPS machines in the buildfarm (frogfish, topminnow) and they aren't complaining. 2. What toolchains define __mips_isa_rev at all? Seems like we could be trading one portability issue for another one. 3. If we actually need something here, don't we need a run-time probe rather than a compile-time check? Distro packagers, for example, can't assume that their packages will be run on exactly the hardware they build on. regards, tom lane