From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Using POPCNT and other advanced bit manipulation instructions |
Date: | 2019-02-13 22:33:22 |
Message-ID: | 26998.1550097202@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> and we have defined pg_popcount64() like this:
> static int
> pg_popcount64_sse42(uint64 word)
> {
> return __builtin_popcountl(word);
> }
That is clearly completely broken.
> If that's correct, then I think we need something like this patch. But
> it makes me wonder whether we need a configure test for
> __builtin_popcountll() and friends. I wonder if there's any compiler
> that implements __builtin_popcountl() but not __builtin_popcountll() ...
> and if not, then the test for __builtin_popcountl() should be removed,
> and have everything rely on the one for __builtin_popcount().
AFAICS, this is a gcc-ism, and it looks like they've probably had
all width variants for the same amount of time. I'd take out the
test for __builtin_popcountl(), and assume that testing for
__builtin_popcount() is sufficient until proven differently.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-02-13 22:37:56 | Re: Using POPCNT and other advanced bit manipulation instructions |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-02-13 22:17:19 | Re: Using POPCNT and other advanced bit manipulation instructions |