Re: Clang optimiser vs preproc.c

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Clang optimiser vs preproc.c
Date: 2023-12-16 03:04:28
Message-ID: CA+hUKG+abbEhzrKKdnaKFxPdexhOKV78ZDm1ZmM6Lzis=eBCjA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 3:44 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > FYI, it looks like there is a big jump in CPU time to compile preproc.c at -O2:
>
> > clang15: ~16s
> > clang16: ~211s
> > clang17: ~233s
>
> What are the numbers for gram.c?

clang15: ~3.8s
clang16: ~3.2s
clang17: ~2.9s

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2023-12-16 03:19:56 Re: Clang optimiser vs preproc.c
Previous Message Tom Lane 2023-12-16 02:44:48 Re: Clang optimiser vs preproc.c