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

Re: compile bug in HEAD?

From: nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org (Neil Conway)
To: Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: compile bug in HEAD?
Date: 2002-03-31 01:11:13
Message-ID: 20020331011113.GF27863@klamath.dyndns.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 07:56:15PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Neil Conway writes:
> 
> > I'm curious; why is this "not the right fix"? According to the manpage:
> >
> > -l	turns  on  maximum compatibility with the original
> > 	AT&T lex implementation. Note that this does not
> > 	mean full compatibility.  Use of this option
> > 	costs a  considerable  amount  of performance...
> 
> The manpage also lists the specific incompatibilities.  I think we should
> not be affected by them, but someone better check before removing the -l.

AFAICT current sources don't actually use "-l" anywhere.

However, it does appear that we can tweak flex for more performance
(usually at the expense of a larger generated parser). In particular, it
looks like we could use "-Cf" or "-CF". Is this a good idea?

While we're on the subject of minor optimizations, is there a reason why
we execute gcc with "-O2" rather than "-O3" during compilation?

Cheers,

Neil

-- 
Neil Conway <neilconway(at)rogers(dot)com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2002-03-31 03:29:13
Subject: Re: compile bug in HEAD?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-03-31 00:26:01
Subject: Re: rules and default values

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