Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: ANSI-strict pointer aliasing rules

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc
Cc: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Taral <taralx(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ANSI-strict pointer aliasing rules
Date: 2006-04-27 14:49:02
Message-ID: 11034.1146149342@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc writes:
> Even if it was only 1% - 2%. Isn't it worth it? :-)

No.  According to the ancient saying, "I can make this program
arbitrarily fast ... if it doesn't have to give the right answer".
Percentage-point improvements are not worth the risk of introducing
hard-to-find, compiler-and-hardware-dependent bugs.

Show me how to find/prevent those bugs, and I'm all for going with
the stricter rules.  But you're so far off base with the above argument
that I wonder whether we understand each other at all.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: markDate: 2006-04-27 15:08:59
Subject: Re: ANSI-strict pointer aliasing rules
Previous:From: markDate: 2006-04-27 14:43:59
Subject: Re: ANSI-strict pointer aliasing rules

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group