Re: centralize CPU feature detection

From: Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>
To: John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, root <tenistarkim(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: centralize CPU feature detection
Date: 2026-02-18 18:47:45
Message-ID: CAN4CZFMrj1EB9fDQ4+8o-KzVRhh-FM5U3fXPSnc4YmU-LqNuPA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Done. I haven't tried Arm support yet, but now I realize the header
> should be named generically, so it's now "pg_cpu.h". Then it can be
> included everywhere.

That makes sense, and simplifies the usage of the header. (However,
the include guard still refers to the old name)

> I don't know. The instruction family names are conventionally all in
> caps, but this is just our signal that we've populated the array. That
> said, a less generic name would better for grep-ability.

Yes, that could work too. But reserving the lowercase "init" symbol in
a very generic header seems like a bad idea (especially for a use case
that isn't used globally), even if Postgres itself doesn't use the
symbol for anything else. "INIT" at least would be unlikely to
conflict with something else.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marcos Magueta 2026-02-18 19:20:49 Re: WIP - xmlvalidate implementation from TODO list
Previous Message Tom Lane 2026-02-18 18:39:05 Re: meson: Allow disabling static libraries