Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: >> I personally find per-function annotation ala >> __attribute__((optimize("no-crossjumping"))) >> cleaner anyway. I tested that, and it seems to work. >> >> Obviously we'd have to hide that behind a configure test. Could also do >> tests based on __GNUC__ / __GNUC_MINOR__, but that seems uglier.
Agreed. > Checking for this isn't entirely pretty - see my attached attempt at > doing so. I considered hiding > __attribute__((optimize("no-crossjumping"))) in execInterpExpr.c behind > a macro (like PG_DISABLE_CROSSJUMPING), but I don't really think that > makes things better. I think it would, primarily because if we find out that some other compiler spells this differently, we could handle it totally within configure. Isn't our practice to put __attribute__ at the end of a function declaration or definition, not in the middle someplace? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers