From: | "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Platforms with v6.3 trouble |
Date: | 1998-02-25 17:36:26 |
Message-ID: | 34F4569A.99827B07@alumni.caltech.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Since these macros were inlined only for performance reasons, would it
> > be possible to revert to non-inline function calls for these platforms?
> > It would seem that substituting a macro expansion for a compiled routine
> > could be done with a compiler switch (e.g. USE_INLINING) so it could be
> > turned on and off at will.
> >
> > For most of us, the performance gains are fantastic, but for those ports
> > which broke performance has degraded to zero :(
>
> Yes, how do we do that? Do we have inlined-versions of these files?
> Sounds messy. Can people run cpp separately on the files, then compile
> them? I wonder. I think this is an SCO-only problem, and seeing as
> their native compilers are notoriously buggy (Microsoft/SVr4 code), it
> is no wonder.
Well, those macros used to be a function call, right? So surround the macro
with#ifdef USE_INLINING
#define ...
#endif
and surround the old subroutine code with
#ifndef USE_INLINING
...
#endif
Or are the macros of a different nature and not just a subroutine inlining?
If there still needs to be a little macro expansion, then that could be done
also...
> The alpha problem has been solved by having a s_lock.c file, that only
> contains the alpha/linux locking code. They don't have local asm
> labels, and hence the workaround. I believe this is not a problem issue
> for 6.3. Anyone? Of course, we still have the initdb problem, or do
> we?
Don't know...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Wieck | 1998-02-25 17:54:56 | Re: [HACKERS] Memory not freed at WARN |
Previous Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1998-02-25 17:25:06 | Re: [HACKERS] Open 6.3 issues |