On 2013-01-10 00:05:07 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-01-09 17:28:35 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > (We know this doesn't
> > matter, but gcc doesn't; this version of gcc apparently isn't doing much
> > with the knowledge that elog won't return.)
>
> Afaics one reason for that is that we don't have any such annotation for
> elog(), just for ereport. And I don't immediately see how it could be
> added to elog without relying on variadic macros. Bit of a shame, there
> probably a good number of callsites that could actually benefit from
> that knowledge.
> Is it worth making that annotation conditional on variadic macro
> support?
A quick test confirms that. With:
diff --git a/src/include/utils/elog.h b/src/include/utils/elog.h
index cbbda04..39cd809 100644
--- a/src/include/utils/elog.h
+++ b/src/include/utils/elog.h
@@ -212,7 +212,13 @@ extern int getinternalerrposition(void);
* elog(ERROR, "portal \"%s\" not found", stmt->portalname);
*----------
*/
+#ifdef __GNUC__
+#define elog(elevel, ...) elog_start(__FILE__, __LINE__, PG_FUNCNAME_MACRO), \
+ elog_finish(elevel, __VA_ARGS__),
\
+ ((elevel) >= ERROR ? __builtin_unreachable() : (void) 0)
+#else
#define elog elog_start(__FILE__, __LINE__, PG_FUNCNAME_MACRO), elog_finish
+#endif
extern void elog_start(const char *filename, int lineno, const char *funcname);
extern void
nearly the same code is generated for both variants (this is no
additionally saved registers and such).
Two unfinished things:
* the above only checks for gcc although all C99 compilers should
support varargs macros
* It uses __builtin_unreachable() instead of abort() as that creates
a smaller executable. That's gcc 4.5 only. Saves about 30kb in a
both a stripped and unstripped binary.
* elog(ERROR) i.e. no args would require more macro ugliness, but that
seems unneccesary
Doing the __builtin_unreachable() for ereport as well saves about 50kb.
Given that some of those elog/ereports are in performance critical code
paths it seems like a good idea to remove code from the
callsites. Adding configure check for __VA_ARGS__ and
__builtin_unreachable() should be simple enough?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
