Re: LLVM 16 (opaque pointers)

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
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

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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"