Commit 1f64ec6f authored by Tom Lane's avatar Tom Lane

Accept alternate spellings of __sparcv7 and __sparcv8.

Apparently some versions of gcc prefer __sparc_v7__ and __sparc_v8__.
Per report from Waldemar Brodkorb.
parent 4200a928
......@@ -384,12 +384,12 @@ tas(volatile slock_t *lock)
: "=r"(_res), "+m"(*lock)
: "r"(lock)
: "memory");
#if defined(__sparcv7)
#if defined(__sparcv7) || defined(__sparc_v7__)
/*
* No stbar or membar available, luckily no actually produced hardware
* requires a barrier.
*/
#elif defined(__sparcv8)
#elif defined(__sparcv8) || defined(__sparc_v8__)
/* stbar is available (and required for both PSO, RMO), membar isn't */
__asm__ __volatile__ ("stbar \n":::"memory");
#else
......@@ -402,13 +402,13 @@ tas(volatile slock_t *lock)
return (int) _res;
}
#if defined(__sparcv7)
#if defined(__sparcv7) || defined(__sparc_v7__)
/*
* No stbar or membar available, luckily no actually produced hardware
* requires a barrier. We fall through to the default gcc definition of
* S_UNLOCK in this case.
*/
#elif defined(__sparcv8)
#elif defined(__sparcv8) || defined(__sparc_v8__)
/* stbar is available (and required for both PSO, RMO), membar isn't */
#define S_UNLOCK(lock) \
do \
......
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment