From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | hlinnaka <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
Cc: | Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: What exactly is our CRC algorithm? |
Date: | 2015-04-02 22:24:32 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZFzPBY99xDSjFgow0aR_=wLmSjFPBVR6JngmdQwiy42A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> It was added in gcc 4.2. That's good enough for me.
I think it's fine to have optional optimizations that require gcc >=
4.2, as long as older platforms don't break outright.
>>> We have a buildfarm animal that still uses gcc 2.95.3, which was
>>> released in 2001. I don't have a compiler of that vintage to test
>>> with, but I assume an old enough assembler would not know about the
>>> crc32q instruction and fail to compile.
>>
>>
>> GCC from <2002 wouldn't support the symbolic operand names in inline
>> assembly. binutils from <2007 (IIRC) wouldn't support the assembler
>> instructions themselves.
>>
>> We could work around the latter by using the appropriate sequence of
>> bytes. We could work around the former by using the old syntax for
>> operands.
>
> I'm OK with not supporting the new instructions when building with an old
> compiler/assembler. But the build shouldn't fail with an old
> compiler/assembler. Using old syntax or raw bytes just to avoid failing on
> an ancient compiler seems ugly.
I dunno about old syntax, but raw bytes seems like a bad idea, for sure.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-04-02 23:02:59 | Re: Re: Abbreviated keys for Datum tuplesort |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-04-02 22:21:06 | Re: Re: Abbreviated keys for Datum tuplesort |