Tom Lane wrote:
>Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>>Just a thought - if we are messing with the List definition should we at
>>the same time address the strict aliasing issues arising from Node's
>>multiple personalities (I think it is the main offender).
>>Or is the intention never to do this, or not any time soon?
>I have no intention of messing with the Node concept; it's built into
>the backend far too firmly to consider any significant change.
>I don't think we understand exactly what we'd have to avoid in order to
>enable strict aliasing, but if it requires getting rid of Node then it
>ain't happening. (I doubt that it does, anyway. I think the issues are
>probably quite localized. The main problem I see is that we don't have
>any trustworthy check to find out everyplace that strict aliasing could
*nod* (I made the last point previously :-) )
I don't claim that my understanding is anything like complete.
However, in the case of gcc it might be easier to fix than you think,
without a lot of declaration rearranging, using gcc's new "may_alias"
type attribute, (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.3.2/gcc/Type-Attributes.html ) which
could probably be added in a very few places (e.g. Node's typedef) to
Of course, that doesn't help when vendor foo's compiler starts doing
type-based alias analysis.
Still, to quote "Airplane", that's not important right now.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Gaetano Mendola||Date: 2003-11-04 18:55:39|
|Subject: Re: 7.4RC1 tag'd, branched and bundled ...|
|Previous:||From: Greg Stark||Date: 2003-11-04 18:28:58|
|Subject: Re: Experimental patch for inter-page delay in VACUUM|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2003-11-05 00:14:32|
|Subject: Re: UW 713UP3 patch|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-11-04 17:31:21|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] equal() perf tweak |