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

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: Clang optimiser vs preproc.c
Date
Msg-id CA+hUKGJwBi5PFUpcDAi1+YvAoQQG+fuMz=QgQDiFPbgPq7UH0Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Clang optimiser vs preproc.c  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Clang optimiser vs preproc.c
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 11:42 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hrmph.  Well something weird is going on, but it might indeed involve
> me being confused about debug options of the compiler itself.  How can
> one find out which build options were used for clang/llvm compiler +
> libraries?  My earlier reports were from a little machine at home, so
> let's try again on an i9-9900 CPU @ 3.10GHz (a bit snappier) running
> Debian 12, again using packages from apt.llvm.org:
>
> 17 ~198s
> 16 ~14s
> 15 ~11s

And on another Debian machine (this time a VM) also using apt.llvm.org
packages, the huge ~3 minute time occurs with clang-16... hrrrnnnff...
seems like there must be some other variable here that I haven't
spotted yet...



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Add a perl function in Cluster.pm to generate WAL