pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Non-decimal integer literals
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2022 09:35:08 +0100
Message-ID: <068f0344-ccce-c623-3cfe-d09752db158d@enterprisedb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAApHDvr6m8Sipff_MjqyQ8HLeDA3LB5x9zE1oMBPBLxFwTUKQw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b239564c-cad0-b23e-c57e-166d883cb97d@enterprisedb.com>
	<577603ec-787b-61b8-23a2-1bd0457ed1c7@enterprisedb.com>
	<be7fb835-abf9-2f5a-de5d-ad946a7d42e1@enterprisedb.com>
	<c42cb38a-ac42-dd92-2935-dce3b9806e26@enterprisedb.com>
	<CA+TgmoZv2Q11P1JbF+ziu1b8vsBpcjfPqXsHMR0hJqSTeLP1xQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<bef9c869-e773-f792-fde2-d7555add2879@enterprisedb.com>
	<CA+TgmoZRJzBe6yKeBpQ2auHndeV-bzygSY=gr0A0KixZ2giKNg@mail.gmail.com>
	<2317133.1643155358@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<97aa22d7-b80f-efa1-f368-3dbf73a15980@enterprisedb.com>
	<CAFBsxsGcgqJ_KO-1=jCUJKK2z5rCh2qsf7=VgNWzTvakLMDyBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<bc462aff-675b-86e2-46e3-7eaf5ce3e75f@enterprisedb.com>
	<071c40f2-15cf-5db3-8799-dbac041bb881@enterprisedb.com>
	<CAFBsxsG4m9qK=vyLAj2DGo3vZ6AC0vRxA4gWtExH5RGP=sPo_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<b70b15fc-7f8d-5370-21fc-4ec3c154aef3@enterprisedb.com>
	<791aee01-f488-0706-2694-08c5b57a3bdd@enterprisedb.com>
	<CAApHDvr6m8Sipff_MjqyQ8HLeDA3LB5x9zE1oMBPBLxFwTUKQw@mail.gmail.com>

On 23.11.22 09:54, David Rowley wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 at 02:37, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> Here is a new patch.
> 
> This looks like quite an inefficient way to convert a hex string into an int64:
> 
>          while (*ptr && isxdigit((unsigned char) *ptr))
>          {
>              int8        digit = hexlookup[(unsigned char) *ptr];
> 
>              if (unlikely(pg_mul_s64_overflow(tmp, 16, &tmp)) ||
>                  unlikely(pg_sub_s64_overflow(tmp, digit, &tmp)))
>                  goto out_of_range;
> 
>              ptr++;
>          }
> 
> I wonder if you'd be better off with something like:
> 
>          while (*ptr && isxdigit((unsigned char) *ptr))
>          {
>              if (unlikely(tmp & UINT64CONST(0xF000000000000000)))
>                  goto out_of_range;
> 
>              tmp = (tmp << 4) | hexlookup[(unsigned char) *ptr++];
>          }
> 
> Going by [1], clang will actually use multiplication by 16 to
> implement the former. gcc is better and shifts left by 4, so likely
> won't improve things for gcc.  It seems worth doing it this way for
> anything that does not have HAVE__BUILTIN_OP_OVERFLOW anyway.

My code follows the style used for parsing the decimal integers. 
Keeping that consistent is valuable I think.  I think the proposed 
change makes the code significantly harder to understand.  Also, what 
you are suggesting here would amount to an attempt to make parsing 
hexadecimal integers even faster than parsing decimal integers.  Is that 
useful?





view thread (62+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <068f0344-ccce-c623-3cfe-d09752db158d@enterprisedb.com>
Permalink:  ../068f0344-ccce-c623-3cfe-d09752db158d@enterprisedb.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/068f0344-ccce-c623-3cfe-d09752db158d@enterprisedb.com

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com, dgrowleyml@gmail.com, john.naylor@enterprisedb.com
  Subject: Re: Non-decimal integer literals
  In-Reply-To: <068f0344-ccce-c623-3cfe-d09752db158d@enterprisedb.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox