Re: Clang optimiser vs preproc.c

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Thomas Munro
Тема Re: Clang optimiser vs preproc.c
Дата
Msg-id CA+hUKGJm9B+UwGnNVgEMyvT8424=r8W9azWb8FvNXVMsqxDYxw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Clang optimiser vs preproc.c  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 4:19 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> We actually noticed this or a closely-related problem before [1]
> and briefly discussed the possibility of rearranging the generated
> code to make it less indigestible to clang.  But there was no concrete
> idea about what to do specifically, and the thread slid off the radar
> screen.

I've never paid attention to the output of -ftime-report before but
this difference stands out pretty clearly with clang16:

   ---User Time---   --System Time--   --User+System--   ---Wall
Time---  --- Name ---
  201.2266 ( 99.6%)   0.0074 ( 99.3%)  201.2341 ( 99.6%)  207.1308 (
99.6%)  SLPVectorizerPass

The equivalent line for clang15 is:
   3.0979 ( 64.8%)   0.0000 (  0.0%)   3.0979 ( 64.8%)   3.0996 (
64.8%)  SLPVectorizerPass

The thing Andres showed in that other thread was like this (though in
my output it's grown "#2") which is much of the time in 15, but "only"
goes up by a couple of seconds in 16, so it's not our primary problem:

   9.1890 ( 73.1%)   0.0396 ( 23.9%)   9.2286 ( 72.4%)   9.6586 (
72.9%)  Greedy Register Allocator #2



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Corey Huinker
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Statistics Import and Export
Следующее
От: Michael Paquier
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Remove MSVC scripts from the tree