Horton

Re: Strange Windows problem, lock_timeout test request

Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Hari Babu <haribabu.kommi@huawei.com>, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>, Hans-Jürgen Schönig <hs@cybertec.at>, Ants Aasma <ants@cybertec.at>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Amit kapila <amit.kapila@huawei.com>
Date: 2013-03-22T16:49:29Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> The "barrier" essentially
> divides up the code into chunks and requires that those chunks be
> optimized independently by the compiler without knowledge of what
> earlier or later chunks are doing

While all this sounds sensible I would love to see a gcc programmer or
llvm programmer actually comment on what they think volatile does and
what they want to implement in the compiler.

I'm a bit worried that we're making assumptions like "things happen in
a specific order" that aren't really justified. In these days of
superscalar execution and multi-level caches things may be weirder
than we're imagining.


-- 
greg