From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Unimpressed with pg_attribute_always_inline |
Date: | 2018-01-09 00:22:57 |
Message-ID: | 20180109002257.mktia25jg7zgb54o@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-01-08 16:20:26 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 4:12 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > When I complained that always_inline inhibits debuggability, I did NOT
> > mean what shows up in perf reports. I'm talking about whether you can
> > break at, or single-step through, a function reliably and whether gdb
> > knows where all the variables are. In my experience, inlining hurts
> > both of those things, which is why I'm saying that forcing inlining
> > even in non-optimized builds is a bad idea.
>
> Isn't that an argument against inlining in general, rather than
> forcing inlining in particular?
No. Normal 'inline' annotation doesn't do anything on -O0 / debug
builds. But always_inline does, even though the goal of the usage is
just to override the compiler's inlining heuristics.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-01-09 00:39:50 | Re: Unimpressed with pg_attribute_always_inline |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-01-09 00:20:26 | Re: Unimpressed with pg_attribute_always_inline |