Hello Thomas,
19.12.2023 07:20, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 11:42 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
Hrmph. Well something weird is going on, but it might indeed involve
me being confused about debug options of the compiler itself. How can
one find out which build options were used for c
On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 11:42 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> Hrmph. Well something weird is going on, but it might indeed involve
> me being confused about debug options of the compiler itself. How can
> one find out which build options were used for clang/llvm compiler +
> libraries? My earlier repo
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 1:29 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-12-15 22:19:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Thomas Munro writes:
> > > On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 3:44 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Thomas Munro writes:
> > >>> FYI, it looks like there is a big jump in CPU time to compile preproc.c
> > >>
Hi,
On 2023-12-15 22:19:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Munro writes:
> > On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 3:44 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Thomas Munro writes:
> >>> FYI, it looks like there is a big jump in CPU time to compile preproc.c
> >>> at -O2:
> >>> clang15: ~16s
> >>> clang16: ~211s
> >>> clan
On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 4:19 PM Tom Lane 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
Thomas Munro writes:
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 3:44 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Thomas Munro writes:
>>> FYI, it looks like there is a big jump in CPU time to compile preproc.c at
>>> -O2:
>>> clang15: ~16s
>>> clang16: ~211s
>>> clang17: ~233s
>> What are the numbers for gram.c?
> clang15: ~3.8s
>
On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 3:44 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Munro writes:
> > FYI, it looks like there is a big jump in CPU time to compile preproc.c at
> > -O2:
>
> > clang15: ~16s
> > clang16: ~211s
> > clang17: ~233s
>
> What are the numbers for gram.c?
clang15: ~3.8s
clang16: ~3.2s
clang17: ~2
Thomas Munro writes:
> FYI, it looks like there is a big jump in CPU time to compile preproc.c at
> -O2:
> clang15: ~16s
> clang16: ~211s
> clang17: ~233s
What are the numbers for gram.c?
regards, tom lane
Hi,
FYI, it looks like there is a big jump in CPU time to compile preproc.c at -O2:
clang15: ~16s
clang16: ~211s
clang17: ~233s
First noticed on FreeBSD (where the system cc is now clang16), but
reproduced also on Debian (via apt.llvm.org packages).
