| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: What to do with inline warnings? |
| Date: | 2008-05-16 00:12:39 |
| Message-ID: | 1210896759.20076.40.camel@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 20:25 +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:
> The Linux kernel does have some macros meant to mark unlikely branches
> (usually assertion failures) but I'm not sure how they work. And Gcc also has
> a few optimizations which are driven by profiling data but I it doesn't sound
> like this is one of them.
GCC's profile-driven optimization can be used to guide decisions about
both branch prediction/likelihood and function inlining. IMHO it is
definitely worth building the infrastructure to get Postgres builds with
profile-driven optimization -- certainly more maintainable and less
arbitrary than builtin_expect() and friends to me.
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Chernow | 2008-05-16 00:38:06 | Re: libpq object hooks |
| Previous Message | Jan Urbański | 2008-05-15 23:54:42 | deadlock while doing VACUUM and DROP |