|From:||Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>|
|To:||Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>|
|Cc:||pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: What exactly is our CRC algorithm?|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
At 2015-01-02 16:46:29 +0200, hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com wrote:
> In the slicing-by-8 version, I wonder if it would be better to do
> single-byte loads to c0-c7, instead of two 4-byte loads and shifts.
Nope. I did some tests, and the sb8 code is slightly slower if I remove
the 0-7byte alignment loop, and significantly slower if I switch to one
byte loads for the whole thing. So I think we should leave that part as
it is, but:
> Would it even make sense to keep the crc variable in different byte
> order, and only do the byte-swap once in END_CRC32() ?
…this certainly does make a noticeable difference. Will investigate.
> The comments need some work. I note that there is no mention of the
> slicing-by-8 algorithm anywhere in the comments (in the first patch).
Will fix. (Unfortunately the widely cited original Intel paper about
slice-by-8 seems to have gone AWOL, but I'll find something.)
> Instead of checking for "defined(__GNUC__) || defined(__clang__)",
> should add an explicit configure test for __builtin_bswap32().
|Next Message||Magnus Hagander||2015-01-06 11:09:05||Re: SSL information view|
|Previous Message||Michael Paquier||2015-01-06 08:07:06||Re: compiler warnings under MinGW for 9.4|