Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> On 08/31/2016 02:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I wonder whether there is a compiler-dependent way of avoiding the union
>> trick ... or maybe gcc is already smart enough that it doesn't matter?
> It seems to compile into a single instruction, so it can't get any
> better
On 08/31/2016 02:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
Now that we are OK with static inline functions, we can save some cycles
from floating-point functions, by turning Float4GetDatum,
Float8GetDatum, and DatumGetFloat8 into static inlines.
Looks good to me.
Ok, will push.
I
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> Now that we are OK with static inline functions, we can save some cycles
> from floating-point functions, by turning Float4GetDatum,
> Float8GetDatum, and DatumGetFloat8 into static inlines.
Looks good to me.
I wonder whether there is a compiler-dependent way of av
Hi,
Now that we are OK with static inline functions, we can save some cycles
from floating-point functions, by turning Float4GetDatum,
Float8GetDatum, and DatumGetFloat8 into static inlines. They are only a
few instructions, but couldn't be implemented as macros before, because
they need a lo
