Re: Clang optimiser vs preproc.c - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: Clang optimiser vs preproc.c
Date
Msg-id CA+hUKG+abbEhzrKKdnaKFxPdexhOKV78ZDm1ZmM6Lzis=eBCjA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Clang optimiser vs preproc.c  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Clang optimiser vs preproc.c
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 3:44 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> > FYI, it looks like there is a big jump in CPU time to compile preproc.c at -O2:
>
> > clang15: ~16s
> > clang16: ~211s
> > clang17: ~233s
>
> What are the numbers for gram.c?

clang15: ~3.8s
clang16: ~3.2s
clang17: ~2.9s



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Clang optimiser vs preproc.c
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Clang optimiser vs preproc.c