On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 07:56:35PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 18.04.24 19:11, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Thoughts about when to apply these? Arguably they're fixing mildly broken
>> code, making it appropriate to fix in 17, but it's also something that we
>> could end up fixing for a
On 18.04.24 19:11, Andres Freund wrote:
Thoughts about when to apply these? Arguably they're fixing mildly broken
code, making it appropriate to fix in 17, but it's also something that we
could end up fixing for a while...
Yeah, let's keep these for later. They are not regressions, and there
Em qui., 18 de abr. de 2024 às 14:16, Andres Freund
escreveu:
> Hi,
>
> On 2024-04-18 09:07:43 -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> > On 18/04/2024 00:39, Andres Freund wrote:
> > >There are lots of places that could benefit from adding 'static
> > >const'.
> >
> > I found a few more places.
>
> Good
Hi,
On 2024-04-18 09:07:43 -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> On 18/04/2024 00:39, Andres Freund wrote:
> >There are lots of places that could benefit from adding 'static
> >const'.
>
> I found a few more places.
Good catches.
> Patch 004
>
> The opposite would also help, adding static.
> In
Hi,
On 2024-04-18 10:33:30 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Attached are fixes for struct option and a few more occurrences I've found
> > with a bit of grepping.
>
> These look good to me.
Thoughts about when to apply these? Arguably they're fixing mildly broken
code, making it appropriate to
On 18/04/2024 00:39, Andres Freund wrote:
>We have a fair amount of code that uses non-constant function level static
>variables for read-only data. Which makes little sense - it prevents the
>compiler from understanding
>a) that the data is read only and can thus be put into a segment that's
On 18.04.24 10:43, Andrey M. Borodin wrote:
On 18 Apr 2024, at 02:39, Andres Freund wrote:
There are lots of places that could benefit from adding 'static
const'.
+1 for helping compiler.
GCC has a -Wsuggest-attribute=const, we can count these warnings and threat
increase as an error :)
> On 18 Apr 2024, at 02:39, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> There are lots of places that could benefit from adding 'static
> const'.
+1 for helping compiler.
GCC has a -Wsuggest-attribute=const, we can count these warnings and threat
increase as an error :)
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
On 17.04.24 23:39, Andres Freund wrote:
Is there some reason we went for this pattern in a fair number of places? I
assume it's mostly copy-pasta, but...
Right. I don't think it is commonly understood that adding const
qualifiers can help compiler optimization, and it's difficult to
On 18/04/2024 00:39, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
We have a fair amount of code that uses non-constant function level static
variables for read-only data. Which makes little sense - it prevents the
compiler from understanding
a) that the data is read only and can thus be put into a segment that's
Hi,
We have a fair amount of code that uses non-constant function level static
variables for read-only data. Which makes little sense - it prevents the
compiler from understanding
a) that the data is read only and can thus be put into a segment that's shared
between all invocations of the
11 matches
Mail list logo
