Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I can't do MemSet in a macro that returns a value, as palloc requires.
> MemSet has a loop, and that can't be done in a macro that returns a value.
Hm. How did Neil test this originally --- was he relying on being able
to "inline" newNode()?
Anyway, I don't think that passing an extra parameter can be a win.
If there has to be a runtime test, testing whether the two low bits
of the length are zero is probably about the same speed as testing a
boolean parameter. It's unlikely to be enough slower to justify the
cost of passing another parameter.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert E. Bruccoleri||Date: 2002-11-11 19:07:13|
|Subject: Re: Problem with 7.3 on Irix with dates before 1970|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-11-11 16:56:35|
|Subject: Re: Implicit coercions, choosing types for constants, etc (yet again) |
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2002-11-11 18:14:38|
|Subject: Re: minor SGML fix|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2002-11-11 16:40:02|
|Subject: Re: MemSet inline for newNode|