| From: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Devrim Gündüz <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Ronan Dunklau <ronan(dot)dunklau(at)aiven(dot)io> |
| Subject: | Re: LLVM 16 (opaque pointers) |
| Date: | 2023-10-13 14:44:13 |
| Message-ID: | 20231013144413.bgg65vvgekpqtxhs@erthalion.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 11:06:21AM +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 04:31:20PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I don't think the "function(no-op-function),no-op-module" bit does something
> > particularly useful?
>
> Right, looks like leftovers after verifying which passes were actually
> applied. My bad, could be removed.
>
> > I also don't think we should add the mem2reg pass outside of -O0 - running it
> > after a real optimization pipeline doesn't seem useful and might even make the
> > code worse? mem2reg is included in default<O1> (and obviously also in O3).
>
> My understanding was that while mem2reg is included everywhere above
> -O0, this set of passes won't hurt. But yeah, if you say it could
> degrade the final result, it's better to not do this. I'll update this
> part.
Here is what I had in mind (only this part in the second patch was changed).
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v4-0001-jit-Support-opaque-pointers-in-LLVM-16.patch | text/x-diff | 60.1 KB |
| v4-0002-jit-Changes-for-LLVM-17.patch | text/x-diff | 3.1 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-10-13 14:55:10 | Re: LLVM 16 (opaque pointers) |
| Previous Message | David Steele | 2023-10-13 14:40:44 | Re: odd buildfarm failure - "pg_ctl: control file appears to be corrupt" |