On E, 2005-05-16 at 12:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Given the lack of impressive advantage to the 64-bit code even on 64-bit > architectures, it might be best to go with the 32-bit code everywhere, > but I also think we have grounds to file a gcc bug report.
Maybe on other platforms , but 20% on Power is not something we should throw away. crc32 compiled as 32bit executable is 10% slower than crc64 as eithet 32 or 64 bit exe, but if you compile your backend as 64bit then the difference is almost 20%. crc64 is the same speed compiled either way. gcc version 3.4.3 20041212 (Red Hat 3.4.3-9.EL4) on OpenPower5 1.8GHz file ./crctest ./crctest: ELF 32-bit MSB executable, PowerPC or cisco 4500, version 1 (SYSV) cc -O1 crctest.c -o crctest -- time 0.584327 s cc -O2 crctest.c -o crctest -- time 0.594664 s cc -O3 crctest.c -o crctest -- time 0.594764 s file ./crctest ./crctest: ELF 64-bit MSB executable, cisco 7500, version 1 (SYSV) cc -O1 -m64 crctest.c -o crctest -- time 0.644473 s cc -O2 -m64 crctest.c -o crctest -- time 0.648033 s cc -O3 -m64 crctest.c -o crctest -- time 0.688682 s file ./crctest64 ./crctest64: ELF 64-bit MSB executable, cisco 7500, version 1 (SYSV) cc -O1 -m64 crctest64.c -o crctest64 -- time 0.545026 s cc -O2 -m64 crctest64.c -o crctest64 -- time 0.545470 s cc -O3 -m64 crctest64.c -o crctest64 -- time 0.545037 s file ./crctest64 ./crctest64: ELF 32-bit MSB executable, PowerPC or cisco 4500, version 1 (SYSV) cc -O1 crctest64.c -o crctest64 -- time 0.545364 s cc -O2 crctest64.c -o crctest64 -- time 0.644093 s cc -O3 crctest64.c -o crctest64 -- time 0.644155 s > Anyone want to try it with non-gcc compilers? I attach a slightly > cleaned-up version of Mark's original (doesn't draw compiler warnings > or errors on what I tried it on). I'll probably get a chance to try IBM's own compiler tomorrow -- Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
