From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jeremy Kerr <jk(at)ozlabs(dot)org> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH v3] Avoid manual shift-and-test logic in AllocSetFreeIndex |
Date: | 2009-07-20 01:34:11 |
Message-ID: | 14195.1248053651@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeremy Kerr <jk(at)ozlabs(dot)org> writes:
>>> - inline is forbidden to use in PostgreSQL - you need exception or
>>> do it differently
> (inline again: should I just make this a static, the compiler can inline
> where possible? or do you want a macro?)
I don't know where Zdenek got the idea that we have something against
"inline".
So far as I can see, recent versions of gcc claim to support
__builtin_clz on all supported architectures. On some it might be no
faster than our existing loop, but it seems unlikely to be slower.
The two comments I have are
* do something other than the hardwired "32" for word size; perhaps
sizeof(int) * BITS_PER_BYTE.
* do not use the separate "fls" function. On a compiler that fails to
inline it, this patch would be a net performance loss, which we're not
likely to tolerate for a patch that has no other reason to live than
performance. Just #if the builtin right into the one place where it
will be used.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-07-20 01:35:47 | Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3] [libpq] rework sigpipe-handling macros |
Previous Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2009-07-20 01:09:33 | Re: SE-PostgreSQL? |