On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 21:39, Joel Jacobson <j...@compiler.org> wrote: > > I like these simplifications, how `var2ndigits` is used instead of > `res_ndigits`: > - for (int i = res_ndigits - 3; i >= 1; i--) > + for (int i = var2ndigits - 1; i >= 1; i--) > > But I wonder why does `case 1:` not follow the same pattern? > for (int i = res_ndigits - 2; i >= 0; i--) >
Ah yes, that should be made the same. (I think I did do that at one point, but then accidentally reverted it during a code refactoring.) > * v3-0002 > > I think it's non-obvious if the separate code paths for 32-bit and 64-bit, > using `#if SIZEOF_DATUM < 8`, to get *fast* 32-bit support, outweighs > the benefits of simpler code. > > You brought up the question if 32-bit systems should be regarded > as legacy previously in this thread. > > Unfortunately, we didn't get any feedback, so I'm starting a separate > thread, with subject "Is fast 32-bit code still important?", hoping to get > more input to help us make judgement calls. > Looking at that other thread that you found [1], I think it's entirely possible that there are people who care about 32-bit systems, which means that we might well get complaints, if we make it slower for them. Unfortunately, I don't have any way to test that (I doubt that running a 32-bit executable on my x86-64 system is a realistic test). Regards, Dean [1] https://postgr.es/m/0a71b43129fb447988f152941e1db...@nidsa.net
