From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Bastien_Roucari=C3=A8s?= <rouca@debian.org>,
        pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Detection of hadware feature => please do not use signal
In-reply-to: <1492578.1732574410@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <4496616.iHFcN1HehY@portable-bastien>
 <af84e934-4e9c-4380-95ee-8921dab1254b@iki.fi>
 <1156374.1730396928@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <7ec1c65c-1a28-49a7-af43-f77c260a3df6@iki.fi>
 <1292593.1730399134@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+hUKGLRXq0-s0n2=dy_A5iY-Omg628osyJEJMjPQ=6m566UgA@mail.gmail.com>
 <707008.1732325995@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+hUKGJPrRow2aiUSK=aep5nyXUaB0gBoDJQKfyCsP=-ivfapg@mail.gmail.com>
 <736756.1732341046@sss.pgh.pa.us> <865773.1732399354@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+hUKGLOh5kr4fvGFnpOq+_QuXErsYRL4kcSpBYqKdQLa3keBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <885805.1732406935@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+hUKGKucCptPdnuQtMGpAD3zYTFN0DMpO3D8fDhmuS1c-yBUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1074317.1732479406@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+hUKG+CghJfzhsqTwxxfZoMTA0uKtG8ka02Ydba+qbxOCV5nA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1216860.1732491268@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+hUKGLn70U1Ti+NSeYkQBU83fM5Q8-amnC8Cvge6p3xUY9nBQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1229505.1732498033@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1346552.1732549297@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <1430419.1732557238@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1492578.1732574410@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	message dated "Mon, 25 Nov 2024 17:40:10 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1909651.1732737423.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 14:57:03 -0500
Message-ID: <1909652.1732737423@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1909652.1732737423%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

I wrote:
> Early returns are that they're all picking the +simd option, and
> seem to be just as happy with that as they were without it.
> I wonder if we could just drop the "without" probe altogether.
> It'd save some configure cycles for other platforms (since they'll
> fruitlessly run through all of these tests).

Now that we have a nearly-complete census of the buildfarm,
the end result is that they are all happy with the +simd
spelling ... except for one.  "gull" rejects it:
  clang: error: unsupported argument 'armv8-a+crc+simd' to option '-march='
But without +simd it's okay, so removing the other spelling
would cause a performance regression on that machine.

I find this a bit surprising, because gull is using a reasonably
recent compiler (clang version 17.0.4).  We have much older
clang versions that accept +simd --- but they are all aarch64.
gull seems to be our only representative of clang on arm32.
So this seems like a gcc vs clang difference that we'll have
to put up with.

Anyway, I think this thread is now closed: nothing more to do
unless someone thinks of a platform we need more bespoke code
for.

			regards, tom lane