Jeremy Kerr <j...@ozlabs.org> writes:
>>> - inline is forbidden to use in PostgreSQL - you need exception or
>>> do it differently
> (inline again: should I just make this a static, the compiler can inline
> where possible? or do you want a macro?)
I don't know where Zdenek got the idea that we have something against
"inline".
So far as I can see, recent versions of gcc claim to support
__builtin_clz on all supported architectures. On some it might be no
faster than our existing loop, but it seems unlikely to be slower.
The two comments I have are
* do something other than the hardwired "32" for word size; perhaps
sizeof(int) * BITS_PER_BYTE.
* do not use the separate "fls" function. On a compiler that fails to
inline it, this patch would be a net performance loss, which we're not
likely to tolerate for a patch that has no other reason to live than
performance. Just #if the builtin right into the one place where it
will be used.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
