Re: Back branches vs. gcc 4.8.0 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Greg Stark
Subject Re: Back branches vs. gcc 4.8.0
Date
Msg-id CAM-w4HMnCgxCmftx1dd=eXjgFzxe-9XtO1GwOEabPfSC3N4FkQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Back branches vs. gcc 4.8.0  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Since gcc 4.8 is going to be on a lot of people's machines pretty soon,
> I think we need to do something to prevent it from breaking 8.4.x and
> 9.0.x.  It looks like our choices are (1) teach configure to enable
> -fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations if the compiler recognizes it,
> or (2) back-port commit 8137f2c32322c624e0431fac1621e8e9315202f9.
>
> I'm a bit leaning towards (1), mainly because I'm not excited about

I'm confused. I would have described (1) as entering an arms race.
Each new optimization related to arrays and structs would need a new
flag. Whereas (2) makes the code pretty common traditional code that
gcc is going to need to tolerate for the foreseeable future

-- 
greg



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Substituting Checksum Algorithm (was: Enabling Checksums)
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Remaining beta blockers