I wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 1:26 AM David Rowley wrote:
> > Closer, but I don't see why there's any need to make the fast and slow
> > functions external. It should be perfectly fine to keep them static.
> >
> > I didn't test the performance, but the attached works for me.
>
> Thanks for t
On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 1:26 AM David Rowley wrote:
> Closer, but I don't see why there's any need to make the fast and slow
> functions external. It should be perfectly fine to keep them static.
>
> I didn't test the performance, but the attached works for me.
Thanks for that! I still get a big
On 2021-Aug-13, David Rowley wrote:
> Maybe you saw that there's no such equivalent test when we set
> HAVE_X86_64_POPCNTQ for MSVC on x86_64. The reason for that is that
> we do the run-time test using cpuid.
Yeah, that and also I mistook the two independent "ifdef" blocks for one
block with an
On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 9:33 AM David Rowley wrote:
> Something there that might cause confusion is we do a configure check
> to see if popcntq works and define HAVE_X86_64_POPCNTQ if it does.
> I'm still a bit confused at why we bother doing that. Surely it just
> means that if the build machine
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 at 01:28, David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 at 01:11, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > So when on MSVC, you don't have to check CPUID for support?
>
> That still needs to be checked in MSVC and as far as I can see it is
> being properly checked.
Something there that might
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 at 01:11, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> So when on MSVC, you don't have to check CPUID for support?
That still needs to be checked in MSVC and as far as I can see it is
being properly checked.
David
So when on MSVC, you don't have to check CPUID for support?
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"La primera ley de las demostraciones en vivo es: no trate de usar el sistema.
Escriba un guión que no toque nada para no causar daños." (Jakob Nielsen)
On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 at 14:02, John Naylor wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 8:13 PM David Rowley wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 at 05:11, John Naylor
> > wrote:
> > > 0001 moves some declarations around so that "slow" popcount functions are
> > > called directly on non-x86 platforms.
>
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 8:13 PM David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 at 05:11, John Naylor
wrote:
> > 0001 moves some declarations around so that "slow" popcount functions
are called directly on non-x86 platforms.
>
> I was wondering if there was a reason that you didn't implement this
> b
On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 at 05:11, John Naylor wrote:
> 0001 moves some declarations around so that "slow" popcount functions are
> called directly on non-x86 platforms.
I was wondering if there was a reason that you didn't implement this
by just changing pg_popcount32 and pg_popcount64 to be actual
Currently, all platforms must indirect through a function pointer to call
popcount on a word-sized input, even though we don't arrange for a fast
implementation on non-x86 to make it worthwhile.
0001 moves some declarations around so that "slow" popcount functions are
called directly on non-x86 pl
11 matches
Mail list logo
