MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <afkUeI7UhacZ5ZFm@nathan>
In-Reply-To: <afkUeI7UhacZ5ZFm@nathan>
From: Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2026 03:20:46 +0500
Message-ID: 
 <CALdSSPgchta97kNGkbPVXa88+d-=Z_pKsfHUx_2qT2R63N=_sw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: small cleanup for s_lock.h
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALdSSPgchta97kNGkbPVXa88%2Bd-%3DZ_pKsfHUx_2qT2R63N%3D_sw%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 5 May 2026 at 02:49, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I noticed that s_lock.h points to a default implementation of tas() in
> tas.s or s_lock.c, but AFAICT there hasn't been a tas() implementation in
> s_lock.c since commit 718aa43a4e, and commit 25f36066dd seems to have
> removed the last remaining tas.s files.  So, I think this is dead code.

This indeed looks like a dead code. I also noticed `tas.s` is present
in meson.build, gitignore and src/backend/Makefile
should we remove that too?

> I also noticed that HAS_TEST_AND_SET just means that TAS is defined, so I
> wrote a 0002 that removes it in favor of checking TAS directly.  I'd like
> to rewrite the comment at the top of the file, too, but haven't gotten to
> that yet.  I find it a little misleading, especially because we #error if
> TAS isn't defined.
>
> --
> nathan


-- 
Best regards,
Kirill Reshke