Re: Add missing JIT inline pass for llvm>=17 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Anthonin Bonnefoy
Subject Re: Add missing JIT inline pass for llvm>=17
Date
Msg-id CAO6_Xqo3yy=M5iwVhxJsetMqVfgBEsctf63UiQjLov7a-KzZfg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Add missing JIT inline pass for llvm>=17  (Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>)
Responses Re: Add missing JIT inline pass for llvm>=17
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 4:20 AM Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se> wrote:
> If inline-always does not do anything it should be removed on older LLVM
> versions too. I do not think we should be having pre- and post-LLVM 17
> run different passes. But as Thomas pointed out inline-always is likely
> used for tuple deforming.

Right, I've missed the l_callsite_alwaysinline for varsize_any.
Testing with the following query to trigger a call to varsize_any:

create table test_always_inline(id integer, data text);
select data, id FROM test_always_inline;

The generated bc were identical (attached with the message), with and
without always-inline with varsize_any not being inlined. I think this
is the same issue as with external functions. varsize_any is defined
in postgres/access/common/heaptuple.bc, and the function needs to be
imported for LLVM to be able to inline it. Without going through
llvm_inline and importing the functions, there's no inlining doable.

Maybe the issue is that always-inline functions should be inlined,
even with the non-optimized case (at least, that's what the configured
passes seem to imply)? But that would require calling llvm_inline,
which kind of defeats the purpose of having a dedicated PGJIT_INLINE
flag and threshold.

I've updated the patch with the simplified PGJIT_INLINE check and the
commit message change. I've added a separate patch to remove the
always-inline pass pre-LLVM 17 if we want to go that way.

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Extended Statistics set/restore/clear functions.
Next
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: refactor architecture-specific popcount code