Re: better atomics - v0.2

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:39 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2013-11-19 10:37:35 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> > The only animal we have that doesn't support quiet inlines today is
>> > HP-UX/ac++, and I think - as in patch 1 in the series - we might be able
>> > to simply suppress the warning there.
>>
>> Or just not worry about it, if it's only a warning?
>
> So, my suggestion on that end is that we remove the requirement for
> quiet inline now and see if it that has any negative consequences on the
> buildfarm for a week or so. Imo that's a good idea regardless of us
> relying on inlining support.
> Does anyone have anything against that plan? If not, I'll prepare a
> patch.
>
>> Or does the warning
>> mean code bloat (lots of useless copies of the inline function)?
>
> After thinking on that for a bit, yes that's a possible consequence, but
> it's quite possible that it happens in cases where we don't get the
> warning too, so I don't think that argument has too much bearing as I
> don't recall a complaint about it.

But I bet the warning we're getting there is complaining about exactly
that thing. It's possible that it means "warning: i've optimized away
your unused function into nothing" but I think it's more likely that
it means "warning: i just emitted dead code". Indeed, I suspect that
this is why that test is written that way in the first place.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company