Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Would you please retest this. I have attached my email showing a > > simpler test that is less error-prone. > > What did you consider less error-prone, exactly? > > Neil's original test considered the case where both the value being > set and the buffer length (second and third args of MemSet) are > compile-time constants. Your test used a compile-time-constant second > arg and a variable third arg. It's obvious from looking at the source > of MemSet that this will make a difference in what an optimizing > compiler can do.
It was less error-prone because you don't have to recompile for every constant, though your idea that a non-constant length may effect the optimizer is possible, though I assumed for >=64, the length would not be significant to the optimizer. Should we take it to 1024 as a switchover point? I am low at 512, and others are higher, so 1024 seems like a good average. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
