X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0C74D9FE5 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2005 11:56:38 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 44087-10 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2005 14:56:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp.nildram.co.uk (smtp.nildram.co.uk [195.112.4.54]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4BCFD9F99 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2005 11:56:34 -0300 (ADT) Received: from 192.168.0.3 (unknown [84.12.188.233]) by smtp.nildram.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C3CB251928; Tue, 4 Oct 2005 15:56:36 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort? From: Simon Riggs To: Martijn van Oosterhout Cc: Tom Lane , Ron Peacetree , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <20051004143041.GH17589@svana.org> References: <18329659.1128188552696.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <20051001215602.GG13830@svana.org> <29837.1128223567@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20051002123240.GA30492@svana.org> <20051002193835.GJ30492@svana.org> <1128376292.8603.142.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20051004100441.GC17589@svana.org> <1128425094.8603.296.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20051004122443.GF17589@svana.org> <7788.1128434784@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20051004143041.GH17589@svana.org> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: 2nd Quadrant Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 15:56:53 +0100 Message-Id: <1128437813.8603.305.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.053 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.003, FORGED_RCVD_HELO=0.05] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200510/177 X-Sequence-Number: 74036 On Tue, 2005-10-04 at 16:30 +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 10:06:24AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Martijn van Oosterhout writes: > > > I'm using: gcc (GCC) 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-13) > > > > I don't know what the units of this number are, but it's apparently far > > too gcc-version-dependent to consider putting into our build scripts. > > Using gcc version 4.0.1 20050727 (current Fedora Core 4 compiler) on > > i386, and compiling tuplesort.c as you did, I find: > > -O2: warning goes away between 800 and 900 > > -O3: warning is always there (tried values up to 10000000) > > (the latter behavior may indicate a bug, not sure). > > Facsinating. The fact that the warning goes away if you don't specify > -finline-limit seems to indicate they've gotten smarter. Or a bug. > We'd have to check the asm code to see if it's actually inlined or > not. I've been using gcc 3.4 and saw no warning when using either "-Winline" or "-O3 -Winline". Martijn, at the moment it sounds like this is a feature that we no longer need to support - even if we should have done for previous releases. Best Regards, Simon Riggs