From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Xiang(dot)Gao(at)arm(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: always use runtime checks for CRC-32C instructions |
Date: | 2023-10-31 20:38:17 |
Message-ID: | 20231031203817.GA78401@nathanxps13 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 04:12:40PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Okay. With that in mind, I think the path forward for new instructions is
>> as follows:
>
>> * If the special CRC instructions can be used with the default compiler
>> flags, we can only use newer instructions if they can also be used with
>> the default compiler flags. (My M2 machine appears to add +crypto by
>> default, so I bet your buildfarm animals would fall into this bucket.)
>> * Otherwise, if the CRC instructions can be used with added flags (i.e.,
>> the runtime check path), we can do a runtime check for the new
>> instructions as well. (Most other buildfarm animals would fall into this
>> bucket.)
>
> This seems like a reasonable proposal.
Great. I think that leaves us with nothing left to do for this thread, so
I'll withdraw it from the commitfest and move the discussion back to the
original thread.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2023-10-31 20:43:28 | Re: always use runtime checks for CRC-32C instructions |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-10-31 20:12:40 | Re: always use runtime checks for CRC-32C instructions |