On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> My aim with this thread was mainly reducing code duplication and
> needless code: perhaps at least the other ideas in the attached
> sketch, namely using ffs instead of the rightmost_one_pos table loop
> and consolidation of popcount into a reu
On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Rowley writes:
>> I'd like to see us using those functions, when they're available and
>> falling back on the array when they're not. Sounds like that would
>> just be a new configure test. Perhaps a good home for some shared code
>> would b
David Rowley writes:
> I'd like to see us using those functions, when they're available and
> falling back on the array when they're not. Sounds like that would
> just be a new configure test. Perhaps a good home for some shared code
> would be numutils.c.
Meh --- numutils.c is about numbers. Ma
On 7 May 2016 at 12:41, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Hi
>
> I noticed that we have three "number_of_ones" tables under contrib and
> two under src, and some new specially masked variants for visibility
> maps.
>
> Would it be an improvement if we just defined one table with external
> linkage, and access
Hi
I noticed that we have three "number_of_ones" tables under contrib and
two under src, and some new specially masked variants for visibility
maps.
Would it be an improvement if we just defined one table with external
linkage, and accessed it via a macros/functions popcount_uint8, and
wider vers
