Re: Optimize Arm64 crc32c implementation in Postgresql

From: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Yuqi Gu <Yuqi(dot)Gu(at)arm(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers\(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Optimize Arm64 crc32c implementation in Postgresql
Date: 2018-05-03 15:54:40
Message-ID: 87fu3891qd.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

Tom> I also noticed that we'd been sloppy about making the file safe to
Tom> compile for both frontend and backend, so I cleaned that up.

In a frontend, wouldn't it be more kosher to restore the previous SIGILL
handler rather than unconditionally reset it to SIG_DFL?

--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-05-03 16:01:04 Re: Optimize Arm64 crc32c implementation in Postgresql
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-05-03 15:38:10 Re: Optimize Arm64 crc32c implementation in Postgresql