You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
postgres/src/backend/utils/adt/numutils.c

761 lines
17 KiB

/*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
* numutils.c
* utility functions for I/O of built-in numeric types.
*
* Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2022, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
* Portions Copyright (c) 1994, Regents of the University of California
*
*
* IDENTIFICATION
* src/backend/utils/adt/numutils.c
*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/
#include "postgres.h"
#include <math.h>
#include <limits.h>
#include <ctype.h>
#include "common/int.h"
27 years ago
#include "utils/builtins.h"
#include "port/pg_bitutils.h"
/*
* A table of all two-digit numbers. This is used to speed up decimal digit
* generation by copying pairs of digits into the final output.
*/
static const char DIGIT_TABLE[200] =
"00" "01" "02" "03" "04" "05" "06" "07" "08" "09"
"10" "11" "12" "13" "14" "15" "16" "17" "18" "19"
"20" "21" "22" "23" "24" "25" "26" "27" "28" "29"
"30" "31" "32" "33" "34" "35" "36" "37" "38" "39"
"40" "41" "42" "43" "44" "45" "46" "47" "48" "49"
"50" "51" "52" "53" "54" "55" "56" "57" "58" "59"
"60" "61" "62" "63" "64" "65" "66" "67" "68" "69"
"70" "71" "72" "73" "74" "75" "76" "77" "78" "79"
"80" "81" "82" "83" "84" "85" "86" "87" "88" "89"
"90" "91" "92" "93" "94" "95" "96" "97" "98" "99";
/*
* Adapted from http://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#IntegerLog10
*/
static inline int
decimalLength32(const uint32 v)
{
int t;
static const uint32 PowersOfTen[] = {
1, 10, 100,
1000, 10000, 100000,
1000000, 10000000, 100000000,
1000000000
};
/*
* Compute base-10 logarithm by dividing the base-2 logarithm by a
* good-enough approximation of the base-2 logarithm of 10
*/
t = (pg_leftmost_one_pos32(v) + 1) * 1233 / 4096;
return t + (v >= PowersOfTen[t]);
}
static inline int
decimalLength64(const uint64 v)
{
int t;
static const uint64 PowersOfTen[] = {
UINT64CONST(1), UINT64CONST(10),
UINT64CONST(100), UINT64CONST(1000),
UINT64CONST(10000), UINT64CONST(100000),
UINT64CONST(1000000), UINT64CONST(10000000),
UINT64CONST(100000000), UINT64CONST(1000000000),
UINT64CONST(10000000000), UINT64CONST(100000000000),
UINT64CONST(1000000000000), UINT64CONST(10000000000000),
UINT64CONST(100000000000000), UINT64CONST(1000000000000000),
UINT64CONST(10000000000000000), UINT64CONST(100000000000000000),
UINT64CONST(1000000000000000000), UINT64CONST(10000000000000000000)
};
/*
* Compute base-10 logarithm by dividing the base-2 logarithm by a
* good-enough approximation of the base-2 logarithm of 10
*/
t = (pg_leftmost_one_pos64(v) + 1) * 1233 / 4096;
return t + (v >= PowersOfTen[t]);
}
static const int8 hexlookup[128] = {
-1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1,
-1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1,
-1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1,
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1,
-1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1,
-1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1,
-1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1,
-1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1,
};
/*
* Convert input string to a signed 16 bit integer.
*
* Allows any number of leading or trailing whitespace characters.
*
* pg_strtoint16() will throw ereport() upon bad input format or overflow;
* while pg_strtoint16_safe() instead returns such complaints in *escontext,
* if it's an ErrorSaveContext.
*
Improve performance of pg_strtointNN functions Experiments have shown that modern versions of both gcc and clang are unable to fully optimize the multiplication by 10 that we're doing in the pg_strtointNN functions. Both compilers seem to be making use of "imul", which is not the most efficient way to multiply by 10. This seems to be due to the overflow checking that we're doing. Without the overflow checks, both those compilers switch to a more efficient method of multiplying by 10. In absence of overflow concern, integer multiplication by 10 can be done by bit-shifting left 3 places to multiply by 8 and then adding the original value twice. To allow compilers this flexibility, here we adjust the code so that we accumulate the number as an unsigned version of the type and remove the use of pg_mul_sNN_overflow() and pg_sub_sNN_overflow(). The overflow checking can be done simply by checking if the accumulated value has gone beyond a 10th of the maximum *signed* value for the given type. If it has then the accumulation of the next digit will cause an overflow. After this is done, we do a final overflow check before converting the unsigned version of the number back to its signed counterpart. Testing has shown about an 8% speedup of a COPY into a table containing 2 INT columns. Author: David Rowley, Dean Rasheed Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrL6_+wKgPqRHr7gH_6xy3hXM6a3QCsZ5ForurjDFfenA@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrdYByjfj-=WbmVNFgmVZg88-dE7heukw8p55aJ+W=qxQ@mail.gmail.com
3 years ago
* NB: Accumulate input as an unsigned number, to deal with two's complement
* representation of the most negative number, which can't be represented as a
Improve performance of pg_strtointNN functions Experiments have shown that modern versions of both gcc and clang are unable to fully optimize the multiplication by 10 that we're doing in the pg_strtointNN functions. Both compilers seem to be making use of "imul", which is not the most efficient way to multiply by 10. This seems to be due to the overflow checking that we're doing. Without the overflow checks, both those compilers switch to a more efficient method of multiplying by 10. In absence of overflow concern, integer multiplication by 10 can be done by bit-shifting left 3 places to multiply by 8 and then adding the original value twice. To allow compilers this flexibility, here we adjust the code so that we accumulate the number as an unsigned version of the type and remove the use of pg_mul_sNN_overflow() and pg_sub_sNN_overflow(). The overflow checking can be done simply by checking if the accumulated value has gone beyond a 10th of the maximum *signed* value for the given type. If it has then the accumulation of the next digit will cause an overflow. After this is done, we do a final overflow check before converting the unsigned version of the number back to its signed counterpart. Testing has shown about an 8% speedup of a COPY into a table containing 2 INT columns. Author: David Rowley, Dean Rasheed Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrL6_+wKgPqRHr7gH_6xy3hXM6a3QCsZ5ForurjDFfenA@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrdYByjfj-=WbmVNFgmVZg88-dE7heukw8p55aJ+W=qxQ@mail.gmail.com
3 years ago
* signed positive number.
*/
int16
pg_strtoint16(const char *s)
{
return pg_strtoint16_safe(s, NULL);
}
int16
pg_strtoint16_safe(const char *s, Node *escontext)
{
const char *ptr = s;
const char *firstdigit;
Improve performance of pg_strtointNN functions Experiments have shown that modern versions of both gcc and clang are unable to fully optimize the multiplication by 10 that we're doing in the pg_strtointNN functions. Both compilers seem to be making use of "imul", which is not the most efficient way to multiply by 10. This seems to be due to the overflow checking that we're doing. Without the overflow checks, both those compilers switch to a more efficient method of multiplying by 10. In absence of overflow concern, integer multiplication by 10 can be done by bit-shifting left 3 places to multiply by 8 and then adding the original value twice. To allow compilers this flexibility, here we adjust the code so that we accumulate the number as an unsigned version of the type and remove the use of pg_mul_sNN_overflow() and pg_sub_sNN_overflow(). The overflow checking can be done simply by checking if the accumulated value has gone beyond a 10th of the maximum *signed* value for the given type. If it has then the accumulation of the next digit will cause an overflow. After this is done, we do a final overflow check before converting the unsigned version of the number back to its signed counterpart. Testing has shown about an 8% speedup of a COPY into a table containing 2 INT columns. Author: David Rowley, Dean Rasheed Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrL6_+wKgPqRHr7gH_6xy3hXM6a3QCsZ5ForurjDFfenA@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrdYByjfj-=WbmVNFgmVZg88-dE7heukw8p55aJ+W=qxQ@mail.gmail.com
3 years ago
uint16 tmp = 0;
bool neg = false;
/* skip leading spaces */
while (likely(*ptr) && isspace((unsigned char) *ptr))
ptr++;
/* handle sign */
if (*ptr == '-')
{
ptr++;
neg = true;
}
else if (*ptr == '+')
ptr++;
/* process digits */
if (ptr[0] == '0' && (ptr[1] == 'x' || ptr[1] == 'X'))
{
firstdigit = ptr += 2;
while (*ptr && isxdigit((unsigned char) *ptr))
{
if (unlikely(tmp > -(PG_INT16_MIN / 16)))
goto out_of_range;
tmp = tmp * 16 + hexlookup[(unsigned char) *ptr++];
}
}
else if (ptr[0] == '0' && (ptr[1] == 'o' || ptr[1] == 'O'))
{
firstdigit = ptr += 2;
while (*ptr && (*ptr >= '0' && *ptr <= '7'))
{
if (unlikely(tmp > -(PG_INT16_MIN / 8)))
goto out_of_range;
tmp = tmp * 8 + (*ptr++ - '0');
}
}
else if (ptr[0] == '0' && (ptr[1] == 'b' || ptr[1] == 'B'))
{
firstdigit = ptr += 2;
while (*ptr && (*ptr >= '0' && *ptr <= '1'))
{
if (unlikely(tmp > -(PG_INT16_MIN / 2)))
goto out_of_range;
Improve performance of pg_strtointNN functions Experiments have shown that modern versions of both gcc and clang are unable to fully optimize the multiplication by 10 that we're doing in the pg_strtointNN functions. Both compilers seem to be making use of "imul", which is not the most efficient way to multiply by 10. This seems to be due to the overflow checking that we're doing. Without the overflow checks, both those compilers switch to a more efficient method of multiplying by 10. In absence of overflow concern, integer multiplication by 10 can be done by bit-shifting left 3 places to multiply by 8 and then adding the original value twice. To allow compilers this flexibility, here we adjust the code so that we accumulate the number as an unsigned version of the type and remove the use of pg_mul_sNN_overflow() and pg_sub_sNN_overflow(). The overflow checking can be done simply by checking if the accumulated value has gone beyond a 10th of the maximum *signed* value for the given type. If it has then the accumulation of the next digit will cause an overflow. After this is done, we do a final overflow check before converting the unsigned version of the number back to its signed counterpart. Testing has shown about an 8% speedup of a COPY into a table containing 2 INT columns. Author: David Rowley, Dean Rasheed Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrL6_+wKgPqRHr7gH_6xy3hXM6a3QCsZ5ForurjDFfenA@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrdYByjfj-=WbmVNFgmVZg88-dE7heukw8p55aJ+W=qxQ@mail.gmail.com
3 years ago
tmp = tmp * 2 + (*ptr++ - '0');
}
}
else
{
firstdigit = ptr;
while (*ptr && isdigit((unsigned char) *ptr))
{
if (unlikely(tmp > -(PG_INT16_MIN / 10)))
goto out_of_range;
tmp = tmp * 10 + (*ptr++ - '0');
}
}
/* require at least one digit */
if (unlikely(ptr == firstdigit))
goto invalid_syntax;
/* allow trailing whitespace, but not other trailing chars */
while (*ptr != '\0' && isspace((unsigned char) *ptr))
ptr++;
if (unlikely(*ptr != '\0'))
goto invalid_syntax;
Improve performance of pg_strtointNN functions Experiments have shown that modern versions of both gcc and clang are unable to fully optimize the multiplication by 10 that we're doing in the pg_strtointNN functions. Both compilers seem to be making use of "imul", which is not the most efficient way to multiply by 10. This seems to be due to the overflow checking that we're doing. Without the overflow checks, both those compilers switch to a more efficient method of multiplying by 10. In absence of overflow concern, integer multiplication by 10 can be done by bit-shifting left 3 places to multiply by 8 and then adding the original value twice. To allow compilers this flexibility, here we adjust the code so that we accumulate the number as an unsigned version of the type and remove the use of pg_mul_sNN_overflow() and pg_sub_sNN_overflow(). The overflow checking can be done simply by checking if the accumulated value has gone beyond a 10th of the maximum *signed* value for the given type. If it has then the accumulation of the next digit will cause an overflow. After this is done, we do a final overflow check before converting the unsigned version of the number back to its signed counterpart. Testing has shown about an 8% speedup of a COPY into a table containing 2 INT columns. Author: David Rowley, Dean Rasheed Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrL6_+wKgPqRHr7gH_6xy3hXM6a3QCsZ5ForurjDFfenA@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrdYByjfj-=WbmVNFgmVZg88-dE7heukw8p55aJ+W=qxQ@mail.gmail.com
3 years ago
if (neg)
{
Improve performance of pg_strtointNN functions Experiments have shown that modern versions of both gcc and clang are unable to fully optimize the multiplication by 10 that we're doing in the pg_strtointNN functions. Both compilers seem to be making use of "imul", which is not the most efficient way to multiply by 10. This seems to be due to the overflow checking that we're doing. Without the overflow checks, both those compilers switch to a more efficient method of multiplying by 10. In absence of overflow concern, integer multiplication by 10 can be done by bit-shifting left 3 places to multiply by 8 and then adding the original value twice. To allow compilers this flexibility, here we adjust the code so that we accumulate the number as an unsigned version of the type and remove the use of pg_mul_sNN_overflow() and pg_sub_sNN_overflow(). The overflow checking can be done simply by checking if the accumulated value has gone beyond a 10th of the maximum *signed* value for the given type. If it has then the accumulation of the next digit will cause an overflow. After this is done, we do a final overflow check before converting the unsigned version of the number back to its signed counterpart. Testing has shown about an 8% speedup of a COPY into a table containing 2 INT columns. Author: David Rowley, Dean Rasheed Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrL6_+wKgPqRHr7gH_6xy3hXM6a3QCsZ5ForurjDFfenA@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrdYByjfj-=WbmVNFgmVZg88-dE7heukw8p55aJ+W=qxQ@mail.gmail.com
3 years ago
/* check the negative equivalent will fit without overflowing */
if (tmp > (uint16) (-(PG_INT16_MIN + 1)) + 1)
goto out_of_range;
Improve performance of pg_strtointNN functions Experiments have shown that modern versions of both gcc and clang are unable to fully optimize the multiplication by 10 that we're doing in the pg_strtointNN functions. Both compilers seem to be making use of "imul", which is not the most efficient way to multiply by 10. This seems to be due to the overflow checking that we're doing. Without the overflow checks, both those compilers switch to a more efficient method of multiplying by 10. In absence of overflow concern, integer multiplication by 10 can be done by bit-shifting left 3 places to multiply by 8 and then adding the original value twice. To allow compilers this flexibility, here we adjust the code so that we accumulate the number as an unsigned version of the type and remove the use of pg_mul_sNN_overflow() and pg_sub_sNN_overflow(). The overflow checking can be done simply by checking if the accumulated value has gone beyond a 10th of the maximum *signed* value for the given type. If it has then the accumulation of the next digit will cause an overflow. After this is done, we do a final overflow check before converting the unsigned version of the number back to its signed counterpart. Testing has shown about an 8% speedup of a COPY into a table containing 2 INT columns. Author: David Rowley, Dean Rasheed Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrL6_+wKgPqRHr7gH_6xy3hXM6a3QCsZ5ForurjDFfenA@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrdYByjfj-=WbmVNFgmVZg88-dE7heukw8p55aJ+W=qxQ@mail.gmail.com
3 years ago
return -((int16) tmp);
}
Improve performance of pg_strtointNN functions Experiments have shown that modern versions of both gcc and clang are unable to fully optimize the multiplication by 10 that we're doing in the pg_strtointNN functions. Both compilers seem to be making use of "imul", which is not the most efficient way to multiply by 10. This seems to be due to the overflow checking that we're doing. Without the overflow checks, both those compilers switch to a more efficient method of multiplying by 10. In absence of overflow concern, integer multiplication by 10 can be done by bit-shifting left 3 places to multiply by 8 and then adding the original value twice. To allow compilers this flexibility, here we adjust the code so that we accumulate the number as an unsigned version of the type and remove the use of pg_mul_sNN_overflow() and pg_sub_sNN_overflow(). The overflow checking can be done simply by checking if the accumulated value has gone beyond a 10th of the maximum *signed* value for the given type. If it has then the accumulation of the next digit will cause an overflow. After this is done, we do a final overflow check before converting the unsigned version of the number back to its signed counterpart. Testing has shown about an 8% speedup of a COPY into a table containing 2 INT columns. Author: David Rowley, Dean Rasheed Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrL6_+wKgPqRHr7gH_6xy3hXM6a3QCsZ5ForurjDFfenA@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrdYByjfj-=WbmVNFgmVZg88-dE7heukw8p55aJ+W=qxQ@mail.gmail.com
3 years ago
if (tmp > PG_INT16_MAX)
goto out_of_range;
return (int16) tmp;
out_of_range:
ereturn(escontext, 0,
(errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
errmsg("value \"%s\" is out of range for type %s",
s, "smallint")));
invalid_syntax:
ereturn(escontext, 0,
(errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_TEXT_REPRESENTATION),
errmsg("invalid input syntax for type %s: \"%s\"",
"smallint", s)));
}
/*
* Convert input string to a signed 32 bit integer.
*
* Allows any number of leading or trailing whitespace characters.
*
* pg_strtoint32() will throw ereport() upon bad input format or overflow;
* while pg_strtoint32_safe() instead returns such complaints in *escontext,
* if it's an ErrorSaveContext.
*
Improve performance of pg_strtointNN functions Experiments have shown that modern versions of both gcc and clang are unable to fully optimize the multiplication by 10 that we're doing in the pg_strtointNN functions. Both compilers seem to be making use of "imul", which is not the most efficient way to multiply by 10. This seems to be due to the overflow checking that we're doing. Without the overflow checks, both those compilers switch to a more efficient method of multiplying by 10. In absence of overflow concern, integer multiplication by 10 can be done by bit-shifting left 3 places to multiply by 8 and then adding the original value twice. To allow compilers this flexibility, here we adjust the code so that we accumulate the number as an unsigned version of the type and remove the use of pg_mul_sNN_overflow() and pg_sub_sNN_overflow(). The overflow checking can be done simply by checking if the accumulated value has gone beyond a 10th of the maximum *signed* value for the given type. If it has then the accumulation of the next digit will cause an overflow. After this is done, we do a final overflow check before converting the unsigned version of the number back to its signed counterpart. Testing has shown about an 8% speedup of a COPY into a table containing 2 INT columns. Author: David Rowley, Dean Rasheed Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrL6_+wKgPqRHr7gH_6xy3hXM6a3QCsZ5ForurjDFfenA@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrdYByjfj-=WbmVNFgmVZg88-dE7heukw8p55aJ+W=qxQ@mail.gmail.com
3 years ago
* NB: Accumulate input as an unsigned number, to deal with two's complement
* representation of the most negative number, which can't be represented as a
Improve performance of pg_strtointNN functions Experiments have shown that modern versions of both gcc and clang are unable to fully optimize the multiplication by 10 that we're doing in the pg_strtointNN functions. Both compilers seem to be making use of "imul", which is not the most efficient way to multiply by 10. This seems to be due to the overflow checking that we're doing. Without the overflow checks, both those compilers switch to a more efficient method of multiplying by 10. In absence of overflow concern, integer multiplication by 10 can be done by bit-shifting left 3 places to multiply by 8 and then adding the original value twice. To allow compilers this flexibility, here we adjust the code so that we accumulate the number as an unsigned version of the type and remove the use of pg_mul_sNN_overflow() and pg_sub_sNN_overflow(). The overflow checking can be done simply by checking if the accumulated value has gone beyond a 10th of the maximum *signed* value for the given type. If it has then the accumulation of the next digit will cause an overflow. After this is done, we do a final overflow check before converting the unsigned version of the number back to its signed counterpart. Testing has shown about an 8% speedup of a COPY into a table containing 2 INT columns. Author: David Rowley, Dean Rasheed Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrL6_+wKgPqRHr7gH_6xy3hXM6a3QCsZ5ForurjDFfenA@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrdYByjfj-=WbmVNFgmVZg88-dE7heukw8p55aJ+W=qxQ@mail.gmail.com
3 years ago
* signed positive number.
*/
int32
pg_strtoint32(const char *s)
{
return pg_strtoint32_safe(s, NULL);
}
int32
pg_strtoint32_safe(const char *s, Node *escontext)
{
const char *ptr = s;
const char *firstdigit;
Improve performance of pg_strtointNN functions Experiments have shown that modern versions of both gcc and clang are unable to fully optimize the multiplication by 10 that we're doing in the pg_strtointNN functions. Both compilers seem to be making use of "imul", which is not the most efficient way to multiply by 10. This seems to be due to the overflow checking that we're doing. Without the overflow checks, both those compilers switch to a more efficient method of multiplying by 10. In absence of overflow concern, integer multiplication by 10 can be done by bit-shifting left 3 places to multiply by 8 and then adding the original value twice. To allow compilers this flexibility, here we adjust the code so that we accumulate the number as an unsigned version of the type and remove the use of pg_mul_sNN_overflow() and pg_sub_sNN_overflow(). The overflow checking can be done simply by checking if the accumulated value has gone beyond a 10th of the maximum *signed* value for the given type. If it has then the accumulation of the next digit will cause an overflow. After this is done, we do a final overflow check before converting the unsigned version of the number back to its signed counterpart. Testing has shown about an 8% speedup of a COPY into a table containing 2 INT columns. Author: David Rowley, Dean Rasheed Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrL6_+wKgPqRHr7gH_6xy3hXM6a3QCsZ5ForurjDFfenA@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrdYByjfj-=WbmVNFgmVZg88-dE7heukw8p55aJ+W=qxQ@mail.gmail.com
3 years ago
uint32 tmp = 0;
bool neg = false;
/* skip leading spaces */
while (likely(*ptr) && isspace((unsigned char) *ptr))
ptr++;
/* handle sign */
if (*ptr == '-')
{
ptr++;
neg = true;
}
else if (*ptr == '+')
ptr++;
/* process digits */
if (ptr[0] == '0' && (ptr[1] == 'x' || ptr[1] == 'X'))
{
firstdigit = ptr += 2;
while (*ptr && isxdigit((unsigned char) *ptr))
{
if (unlikely(tmp > -(PG_INT32_MIN / 16)))
goto out_of_range;
Improve performance of pg_strtointNN functions Experiments have shown that modern versions of both gcc and clang are unable to fully optimize the multiplication by 10 that we're doing in the pg_strtointNN functions. Both compilers seem to be making use of "imul", which is not the most efficient way to multiply by 10. This seems to be due to the overflow checking that we're doing. Without the overflow checks, both those compilers switch to a more efficient method of multiplying by 10. In absence of overflow concern, integer multiplication by 10 can be done by bit-shifting left 3 places to multiply by 8 and then adding the original value twice. To allow compilers this flexibility, here we adjust the code so that we accumulate the number as an unsigned version of the type and remove the use of pg_mul_sNN_overflow() and pg_sub_sNN_overflow(). The overflow checking can be done simply by checking if the accumulated value has gone beyond a 10th of the maximum *signed* value for the given type. If it has then the accumulation of the next digit will cause an overflow. After this is done, we do a final overflow check before converting the unsigned version of the number back to its signed counterpart. Testing has shown about an 8% speedup of a COPY into a table containing 2 INT columns. Author: David Rowley, Dean Rasheed Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrL6_+wKgPqRHr7gH_6xy3hXM6a3QCsZ5ForurjDFfenA@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrdYByjfj-=WbmVNFgmVZg88-dE7heukw8p55aJ+W=qxQ@mail.gmail.com
3 years ago
tmp = tmp * 16 + hexlookup[(unsigned char) *ptr++];
}
}
else if (ptr[0] == '0' && (ptr[1] == 'o' || ptr[1] == 'O'))
{
firstdigit = ptr += 2;
while (*ptr && (*ptr >= '0' && *ptr <= '7'))
{
if (unlikely(tmp > -(PG_INT32_MIN / 8)))
goto out_of_range;
tmp = tmp * 8 + (*ptr++ - '0');
}
}
else if (ptr[0] == '0' && (ptr[1] == 'b' || ptr[1] == 'B'))
{
firstdigit = ptr += 2;
while (*ptr && (*ptr >= '0' && *ptr <= '1'))
{
if (unlikely(tmp > -(PG_INT32_MIN / 2)))
goto out_of_range;
tmp = tmp * 2 + (*ptr++ - '0');
}
}
else
{
firstdigit = ptr;
while (*ptr && isdigit((unsigned char) *ptr))
{
if (unlikely(tmp > -(PG_INT32_MIN / 10)))
goto out_of_range;
tmp = tmp * 10 + (*ptr++ - '0');
}
}
/* require at least one digit */
if (unlikely(ptr == firstdigit))
goto invalid_syntax;
/* allow trailing whitespace, but not other trailing chars */
while (*ptr != '\0' && isspace((unsigned char) *ptr))
ptr++;
if (unlikely(*ptr != '\0'))
goto invalid_syntax;
Improve performance of pg_strtointNN functions Experiments have shown that modern versions of both gcc and clang are unable to fully optimize the multiplication by 10 that we're doing in the pg_strtointNN functions. Both compilers seem to be making use of "imul", which is not the most efficient way to multiply by 10. This seems to be due to the overflow checking that we're doing. Without the overflow checks, both those compilers switch to a more efficient method of multiplying by 10. In absence of overflow concern, integer multiplication by 10 can be done by bit-shifting left 3 places to multiply by 8 and then adding the original value twice. To allow compilers this flexibility, here we adjust the code so that we accumulate the number as an unsigned version of the type and remove the use of pg_mul_sNN_overflow() and pg_sub_sNN_overflow(). The overflow checking can be done simply by checking if the accumulated value has gone beyond a 10th of the maximum *signed* value for the given type. If it has then the accumulation of the next digit will cause an overflow. After this is done, we do a final overflow check before converting the unsigned version of the number back to its signed counterpart. Testing has shown about an 8% speedup of a COPY into a table containing 2 INT columns. Author: David Rowley, Dean Rasheed Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrL6_+wKgPqRHr7gH_6xy3hXM6a3QCsZ5ForurjDFfenA@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrdYByjfj-=WbmVNFgmVZg88-dE7heukw8p55aJ+W=qxQ@mail.gmail.com
3 years ago
if (neg)
{
Improve performance of pg_strtointNN functions Experiments have shown that modern versions of both gcc and clang are unable to fully optimize the multiplication by 10 that we're doing in the pg_strtointNN functions. Both compilers seem to be making use of "imul", which is not the most efficient way to multiply by 10. This seems to be due to the overflow checking that we're doing. Without the overflow checks, both those compilers switch to a more efficient method of multiplying by 10. In absence of overflow concern, integer multiplication by 10 can be done by bit-shifting left 3 places to multiply by 8 and then adding the original value twice. To allow compilers this flexibility, here we adjust the code so that we accumulate the number as an unsigned version of the type and remove the use of pg_mul_sNN_overflow() and pg_sub_sNN_overflow(). The overflow checking can be done simply by checking if the accumulated value has gone beyond a 10th of the maximum *signed* value for the given type. If it has then the accumulation of the next digit will cause an overflow. After this is done, we do a final overflow check before converting the unsigned version of the number back to its signed counterpart. Testing has shown about an 8% speedup of a COPY into a table containing 2 INT columns. Author: David Rowley, Dean Rasheed Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrL6_+wKgPqRHr7gH_6xy3hXM6a3QCsZ5ForurjDFfenA@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrdYByjfj-=WbmVNFgmVZg88-dE7heukw8p55aJ+W=qxQ@mail.gmail.com
3 years ago
/* check the negative equivalent will fit without overflowing */
if (tmp > (uint32) (-(PG_INT32_MIN + 1)) + 1)
goto out_of_range;
Improve performance of pg_strtointNN functions Experiments have shown that modern versions of both gcc and clang are unable to fully optimize the multiplication by 10 that we're doing in the pg_strtointNN functions. Both compilers seem to be making use of "imul", which is not the most efficient way to multiply by 10. This seems to be due to the overflow checking that we're doing. Without the overflow checks, both those compilers switch to a more efficient method of multiplying by 10. In absence of overflow concern, integer multiplication by 10 can be done by bit-shifting left 3 places to multiply by 8 and then adding the original value twice. To allow compilers this flexibility, here we adjust the code so that we accumulate the number as an unsigned version of the type and remove the use of pg_mul_sNN_overflow() and pg_sub_sNN_overflow(). The overflow checking can be done simply by checking if the accumulated value has gone beyond a 10th of the maximum *signed* value for the given type. If it has then the accumulation of the next digit will cause an overflow. After this is done, we do a final overflow check before converting the unsigned version of the number back to its signed counterpart. Testing has shown about an 8% speedup of a COPY into a table containing 2 INT columns. Author: David Rowley, Dean Rasheed Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrL6_+wKgPqRHr7gH_6xy3hXM6a3QCsZ5ForurjDFfenA@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrdYByjfj-=WbmVNFgmVZg88-dE7heukw8p55aJ+W=qxQ@mail.gmail.com
3 years ago
return -((int32) tmp);
}
Improve performance of pg_strtointNN functions Experiments have shown that modern versions of both gcc and clang are unable to fully optimize the multiplication by 10 that we're doing in the pg_strtointNN functions. Both compilers seem to be making use of "imul", which is not the most efficient way to multiply by 10. This seems to be due to the overflow checking that we're doing. Without the overflow checks, both those compilers switch to a more efficient method of multiplying by 10. In absence of overflow concern, integer multiplication by 10 can be done by bit-shifting left 3 places to multiply by 8 and then adding the original value twice. To allow compilers this flexibility, here we adjust the code so that we accumulate the number as an unsigned version of the type and remove the use of pg_mul_sNN_overflow() and pg_sub_sNN_overflow(). The overflow checking can be done simply by checking if the accumulated value has gone beyond a 10th of the maximum *signed* value for the given type. If it has then the accumulation of the next digit will cause an overflow. After this is done, we do a final overflow check before converting the unsigned version of the number back to its signed counterpart. Testing has shown about an 8% speedup of a COPY into a table containing 2 INT columns. Author: David Rowley, Dean Rasheed Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrL6_+wKgPqRHr7gH_6xy3hXM6a3QCsZ5ForurjDFfenA@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrdYByjfj-=WbmVNFgmVZg88-dE7heukw8p55aJ+W=qxQ@mail.gmail.com
3 years ago
if (tmp > PG_INT32_MAX)
goto out_of_range;
return (int32) tmp;
out_of_range:
ereturn(escontext, 0,
(errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
errmsg("value \"%s\" is out of range for type %s",
s, "integer")));
invalid_syntax:
ereturn(escontext, 0,
(errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_TEXT_REPRESENTATION),
errmsg("invalid input syntax for type %s: \"%s\"",
"integer", s)));
}
/*
* Convert input string to a signed 64 bit integer.
*
* Allows any number of leading or trailing whitespace characters.
*
* pg_strtoint64() will throw ereport() upon bad input format or overflow;
* while pg_strtoint64_safe() instead returns such complaints in *escontext,
* if it's an ErrorSaveContext.
*
Improve performance of pg_strtointNN functions Experiments have shown that modern versions of both gcc and clang are unable to fully optimize the multiplication by 10 that we're doing in the pg_strtointNN functions. Both compilers seem to be making use of "imul", which is not the most efficient way to multiply by 10. This seems to be due to the overflow checking that we're doing. Without the overflow checks, both those compilers switch to a more efficient method of multiplying by 10. In absence of overflow concern, integer multiplication by 10 can be done by bit-shifting left 3 places to multiply by 8 and then adding the original value twice. To allow compilers this flexibility, here we adjust the code so that we accumulate the number as an unsigned version of the type and remove the use of pg_mul_sNN_overflow() and pg_sub_sNN_overflow(). The overflow checking can be done simply by checking if the accumulated value has gone beyond a 10th of the maximum *signed* value for the given type. If it has then the accumulation of the next digit will cause an overflow. After this is done, we do a final overflow check before converting the unsigned version of the number back to its signed counterpart. Testing has shown about an 8% speedup of a COPY into a table containing 2 INT columns. Author: David Rowley, Dean Rasheed Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrL6_+wKgPqRHr7gH_6xy3hXM6a3QCsZ5ForurjDFfenA@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrdYByjfj-=WbmVNFgmVZg88-dE7heukw8p55aJ+W=qxQ@mail.gmail.com
3 years ago
* NB: Accumulate input as an unsigned number, to deal with two's complement
* representation of the most negative number, which can't be represented as a
Improve performance of pg_strtointNN functions Experiments have shown that modern versions of both gcc and clang are unable to fully optimize the multiplication by 10 that we're doing in the pg_strtointNN functions. Both compilers seem to be making use of "imul", which is not the most efficient way to multiply by 10. This seems to be due to the overflow checking that we're doing. Without the overflow checks, both those compilers switch to a more efficient method of multiplying by 10. In absence of overflow concern, integer multiplication by 10 can be done by bit-shifting left 3 places to multiply by 8 and then adding the original value twice. To allow compilers this flexibility, here we adjust the code so that we accumulate the number as an unsigned version of the type and remove the use of pg_mul_sNN_overflow() and pg_sub_sNN_overflow(). The overflow checking can be done simply by checking if the accumulated value has gone beyond a 10th of the maximum *signed* value for the given type. If it has then the accumulation of the next digit will cause an overflow. After this is done, we do a final overflow check before converting the unsigned version of the number back to its signed counterpart. Testing has shown about an 8% speedup of a COPY into a table containing 2 INT columns. Author: David Rowley, Dean Rasheed Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrL6_+wKgPqRHr7gH_6xy3hXM6a3QCsZ5ForurjDFfenA@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrdYByjfj-=WbmVNFgmVZg88-dE7heukw8p55aJ+W=qxQ@mail.gmail.com
3 years ago
* signed positive number.
*/
int64
pg_strtoint64(const char *s)
{
return pg_strtoint64_safe(s, NULL);
}
int64
pg_strtoint64_safe(const char *s, Node *escontext)
{
const char *ptr = s;
const char *firstdigit;
Improve performance of pg_strtointNN functions Experiments have shown that modern versions of both gcc and clang are unable to fully optimize the multiplication by 10 that we're doing in the pg_strtointNN functions. Both compilers seem to be making use of "imul", which is not the most efficient way to multiply by 10. This seems to be due to the overflow checking that we're doing. Without the overflow checks, both those compilers switch to a more efficient method of multiplying by 10. In absence of overflow concern, integer multiplication by 10 can be done by bit-shifting left 3 places to multiply by 8 and then adding the original value twice. To allow compilers this flexibility, here we adjust the code so that we accumulate the number as an unsigned version of the type and remove the use of pg_mul_sNN_overflow() and pg_sub_sNN_overflow(). The overflow checking can be done simply by checking if the accumulated value has gone beyond a 10th of the maximum *signed* value for the given type. If it has then the accumulation of the next digit will cause an overflow. After this is done, we do a final overflow check before converting the unsigned version of the number back to its signed counterpart. Testing has shown about an 8% speedup of a COPY into a table containing 2 INT columns. Author: David Rowley, Dean Rasheed Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrL6_+wKgPqRHr7gH_6xy3hXM6a3QCsZ5ForurjDFfenA@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrdYByjfj-=WbmVNFgmVZg88-dE7heukw8p55aJ+W=qxQ@mail.gmail.com
3 years ago
uint64 tmp = 0;
bool neg = false;
/* skip leading spaces */
while (*ptr && isspace((unsigned char) *ptr))
ptr++;
/* handle sign */
if (*ptr == '-')
{
ptr++;
neg = true;
}
else if (*ptr == '+')
ptr++;
/* process digits */
if (ptr[0] == '0' && (ptr[1] == 'x' || ptr[1] == 'X'))
{
firstdigit = ptr += 2;
while (*ptr && isxdigit((unsigned char) *ptr))
{
if (unlikely(tmp > -(PG_INT64_MIN / 16)))
goto out_of_range;
Improve performance of pg_strtointNN functions Experiments have shown that modern versions of both gcc and clang are unable to fully optimize the multiplication by 10 that we're doing in the pg_strtointNN functions. Both compilers seem to be making use of "imul", which is not the most efficient way to multiply by 10. This seems to be due to the overflow checking that we're doing. Without the overflow checks, both those compilers switch to a more efficient method of multiplying by 10. In absence of overflow concern, integer multiplication by 10 can be done by bit-shifting left 3 places to multiply by 8 and then adding the original value twice. To allow compilers this flexibility, here we adjust the code so that we accumulate the number as an unsigned version of the type and remove the use of pg_mul_sNN_overflow() and pg_sub_sNN_overflow(). The overflow checking can be done simply by checking if the accumulated value has gone beyond a 10th of the maximum *signed* value for the given type. If it has then the accumulation of the next digit will cause an overflow. After this is done, we do a final overflow check before converting the unsigned version of the number back to its signed counterpart. Testing has shown about an 8% speedup of a COPY into a table containing 2 INT columns. Author: David Rowley, Dean Rasheed Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrL6_+wKgPqRHr7gH_6xy3hXM6a3QCsZ5ForurjDFfenA@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrdYByjfj-=WbmVNFgmVZg88-dE7heukw8p55aJ+W=qxQ@mail.gmail.com
3 years ago
tmp = tmp * 16 + hexlookup[(unsigned char) *ptr++];
}
}
else if (ptr[0] == '0' && (ptr[1] == 'o' || ptr[1] == 'O'))
{
firstdigit = ptr += 2;
while (*ptr && (*ptr >= '0' && *ptr <= '7'))
{
if (unlikely(tmp > -(PG_INT64_MIN / 8)))
goto out_of_range;
tmp = tmp * 8 + (*ptr++ - '0');
}
}
else if (ptr[0] == '0' && (ptr[1] == 'b' || ptr[1] == 'B'))
{
firstdigit = ptr += 2;
while (*ptr && (*ptr >= '0' && *ptr <= '1'))
{
if (unlikely(tmp > -(PG_INT64_MIN / 2)))
goto out_of_range;
tmp = tmp * 2 + (*ptr++ - '0');
}
}
else
{
firstdigit = ptr;
while (*ptr && isdigit((unsigned char) *ptr))
{
if (unlikely(tmp > -(PG_INT64_MIN / 10)))
goto out_of_range;
tmp = tmp * 10 + (*ptr++ - '0');
}
}
/* require at least one digit */
if (unlikely(ptr == firstdigit))
goto invalid_syntax;
/* allow trailing whitespace, but not other trailing chars */
while (*ptr != '\0' && isspace((unsigned char) *ptr))
ptr++;
if (unlikely(*ptr != '\0'))
goto invalid_syntax;
Improve performance of pg_strtointNN functions Experiments have shown that modern versions of both gcc and clang are unable to fully optimize the multiplication by 10 that we're doing in the pg_strtointNN functions. Both compilers seem to be making use of "imul", which is not the most efficient way to multiply by 10. This seems to be due to the overflow checking that we're doing. Without the overflow checks, both those compilers switch to a more efficient method of multiplying by 10. In absence of overflow concern, integer multiplication by 10 can be done by bit-shifting left 3 places to multiply by 8 and then adding the original value twice. To allow compilers this flexibility, here we adjust the code so that we accumulate the number as an unsigned version of the type and remove the use of pg_mul_sNN_overflow() and pg_sub_sNN_overflow(). The overflow checking can be done simply by checking if the accumulated value has gone beyond a 10th of the maximum *signed* value for the given type. If it has then the accumulation of the next digit will cause an overflow. After this is done, we do a final overflow check before converting the unsigned version of the number back to its signed counterpart. Testing has shown about an 8% speedup of a COPY into a table containing 2 INT columns. Author: David Rowley, Dean Rasheed Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrL6_+wKgPqRHr7gH_6xy3hXM6a3QCsZ5ForurjDFfenA@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrdYByjfj-=WbmVNFgmVZg88-dE7heukw8p55aJ+W=qxQ@mail.gmail.com
3 years ago
if (neg)
{
Improve performance of pg_strtointNN functions Experiments have shown that modern versions of both gcc and clang are unable to fully optimize the multiplication by 10 that we're doing in the pg_strtointNN functions. Both compilers seem to be making use of "imul", which is not the most efficient way to multiply by 10. This seems to be due to the overflow checking that we're doing. Without the overflow checks, both those compilers switch to a more efficient method of multiplying by 10. In absence of overflow concern, integer multiplication by 10 can be done by bit-shifting left 3 places to multiply by 8 and then adding the original value twice. To allow compilers this flexibility, here we adjust the code so that we accumulate the number as an unsigned version of the type and remove the use of pg_mul_sNN_overflow() and pg_sub_sNN_overflow(). The overflow checking can be done simply by checking if the accumulated value has gone beyond a 10th of the maximum *signed* value for the given type. If it has then the accumulation of the next digit will cause an overflow. After this is done, we do a final overflow check before converting the unsigned version of the number back to its signed counterpart. Testing has shown about an 8% speedup of a COPY into a table containing 2 INT columns. Author: David Rowley, Dean Rasheed Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrL6_+wKgPqRHr7gH_6xy3hXM6a3QCsZ5ForurjDFfenA@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrdYByjfj-=WbmVNFgmVZg88-dE7heukw8p55aJ+W=qxQ@mail.gmail.com
3 years ago
/* check the negative equivalent will fit without overflowing */
if (tmp > (uint64) (-(PG_INT64_MIN + 1)) + 1)
goto out_of_range;
Improve performance of pg_strtointNN functions Experiments have shown that modern versions of both gcc and clang are unable to fully optimize the multiplication by 10 that we're doing in the pg_strtointNN functions. Both compilers seem to be making use of "imul", which is not the most efficient way to multiply by 10. This seems to be due to the overflow checking that we're doing. Without the overflow checks, both those compilers switch to a more efficient method of multiplying by 10. In absence of overflow concern, integer multiplication by 10 can be done by bit-shifting left 3 places to multiply by 8 and then adding the original value twice. To allow compilers this flexibility, here we adjust the code so that we accumulate the number as an unsigned version of the type and remove the use of pg_mul_sNN_overflow() and pg_sub_sNN_overflow(). The overflow checking can be done simply by checking if the accumulated value has gone beyond a 10th of the maximum *signed* value for the given type. If it has then the accumulation of the next digit will cause an overflow. After this is done, we do a final overflow check before converting the unsigned version of the number back to its signed counterpart. Testing has shown about an 8% speedup of a COPY into a table containing 2 INT columns. Author: David Rowley, Dean Rasheed Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrL6_+wKgPqRHr7gH_6xy3hXM6a3QCsZ5ForurjDFfenA@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrdYByjfj-=WbmVNFgmVZg88-dE7heukw8p55aJ+W=qxQ@mail.gmail.com
3 years ago
return -((int64) tmp);
}
Improve performance of pg_strtointNN functions Experiments have shown that modern versions of both gcc and clang are unable to fully optimize the multiplication by 10 that we're doing in the pg_strtointNN functions. Both compilers seem to be making use of "imul", which is not the most efficient way to multiply by 10. This seems to be due to the overflow checking that we're doing. Without the overflow checks, both those compilers switch to a more efficient method of multiplying by 10. In absence of overflow concern, integer multiplication by 10 can be done by bit-shifting left 3 places to multiply by 8 and then adding the original value twice. To allow compilers this flexibility, here we adjust the code so that we accumulate the number as an unsigned version of the type and remove the use of pg_mul_sNN_overflow() and pg_sub_sNN_overflow(). The overflow checking can be done simply by checking if the accumulated value has gone beyond a 10th of the maximum *signed* value for the given type. If it has then the accumulation of the next digit will cause an overflow. After this is done, we do a final overflow check before converting the unsigned version of the number back to its signed counterpart. Testing has shown about an 8% speedup of a COPY into a table containing 2 INT columns. Author: David Rowley, Dean Rasheed Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrL6_+wKgPqRHr7gH_6xy3hXM6a3QCsZ5ForurjDFfenA@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrdYByjfj-=WbmVNFgmVZg88-dE7heukw8p55aJ+W=qxQ@mail.gmail.com
3 years ago
if (tmp > PG_INT64_MAX)
goto out_of_range;
return (int64) tmp;
out_of_range:
ereturn(escontext, 0,
(errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE),
errmsg("value \"%s\" is out of range for type %s",
s, "bigint")));
invalid_syntax:
ereturn(escontext, 0,
(errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_TEXT_REPRESENTATION),
errmsg("invalid input syntax for type %s: \"%s\"",
"bigint", s)));
}
/*
* pg_itoa: converts a signed 16-bit integer to its string representation
* and returns strlen(a).
*
* Caller must ensure that 'a' points to enough memory to hold the result
* (at least 7 bytes, counting a leading sign and trailing NUL).
*
* It doesn't seem worth implementing this separately.
*/
int
pg_itoa(int16 i, char *a)
{
return pg_ltoa((int32) i, a);
}
/*
* pg_ultoa_n: converts an unsigned 32-bit integer to its string representation,
* not NUL-terminated, and returns the length of that string representation
*
* Caller must ensure that 'a' points to enough memory to hold the result (at
* least 10 bytes)
*/
int
pg_ultoa_n(uint32 value, char *a)
{
int olength,
i = 0;
/* Degenerate case */
if (value == 0)
{
*a = '0';
return 1;
}
olength = decimalLength32(value);
/* Compute the result string. */
while (value >= 10000)
{
const uint32 c = value - 10000 * (value / 10000);
const uint32 c0 = (c % 100) << 1;
const uint32 c1 = (c / 100) << 1;
char *pos = a + olength - i;
value /= 10000;
memcpy(pos - 2, DIGIT_TABLE + c0, 2);
memcpy(pos - 4, DIGIT_TABLE + c1, 2);
i += 4;
}
if (value >= 100)
{
const uint32 c = (value % 100) << 1;
char *pos = a + olength - i;
value /= 100;
memcpy(pos - 2, DIGIT_TABLE + c, 2);
i += 2;
}
if (value >= 10)
{
const uint32 c = value << 1;
char *pos = a + olength - i;
memcpy(pos - 2, DIGIT_TABLE + c, 2);
}
else
{
*a = (char) ('0' + value);
}
return olength;
}
/*
* pg_ltoa: converts a signed 32-bit integer to its string representation and
* returns strlen(a).
*
* It is the caller's responsibility to ensure that a is at least 12 bytes long,
* which is enough room to hold a minus sign, a maximally long int32, and the
* above terminating NUL.
*/
int
pg_ltoa(int32 value, char *a)
{
uint32 uvalue = (uint32) value;
int len = 0;
if (value < 0)
{
uvalue = (uint32) 0 - uvalue;
a[len++] = '-';
}
len += pg_ultoa_n(uvalue, a + len);
a[len] = '\0';
return len;
}
/*
* Get the decimal representation, not NUL-terminated, and return the length of
* same. Caller must ensure that a points to at least MAXINT8LEN bytes.
*/
int
pg_ulltoa_n(uint64 value, char *a)
{
int olength,
i = 0;
uint32 value2;
/* Degenerate case */
if (value == 0)
{
*a = '0';
return 1;
}
olength = decimalLength64(value);
/* Compute the result string. */
while (value >= 100000000)
{
const uint64 q = value / 100000000;
uint32 value3 = (uint32) (value - 100000000 * q);
const uint32 c = value3 % 10000;
const uint32 d = value3 / 10000;
const uint32 c0 = (c % 100) << 1;
const uint32 c1 = (c / 100) << 1;
const uint32 d0 = (d % 100) << 1;
const uint32 d1 = (d / 100) << 1;
char *pos = a + olength - i;
value = q;
memcpy(pos - 2, DIGIT_TABLE + c0, 2);
memcpy(pos - 4, DIGIT_TABLE + c1, 2);
memcpy(pos - 6, DIGIT_TABLE + d0, 2);
memcpy(pos - 8, DIGIT_TABLE + d1, 2);
i += 8;
}
/* Switch to 32-bit for speed */
value2 = (uint32) value;
if (value2 >= 10000)
{
const uint32 c = value2 - 10000 * (value2 / 10000);
const uint32 c0 = (c % 100) << 1;
const uint32 c1 = (c / 100) << 1;
char *pos = a + olength - i;
value2 /= 10000;
memcpy(pos - 2, DIGIT_TABLE + c0, 2);
memcpy(pos - 4, DIGIT_TABLE + c1, 2);
i += 4;
}
if (value2 >= 100)
{
const uint32 c = (value2 % 100) << 1;
char *pos = a + olength - i;
value2 /= 100;
memcpy(pos - 2, DIGIT_TABLE + c, 2);
i += 2;
}
if (value2 >= 10)
{
const uint32 c = value2 << 1;
char *pos = a + olength - i;
memcpy(pos - 2, DIGIT_TABLE + c, 2);
}
else
*a = (char) ('0' + value2);
return olength;
}
/*
* pg_lltoa: converts a signed 64-bit integer to its string representation and
* returns strlen(a).
*
* Caller must ensure that 'a' points to enough memory to hold the result
* (at least MAXINT8LEN + 1 bytes, counting a leading sign and trailing NUL).
*/
int
pg_lltoa(int64 value, char *a)
{
uint64 uvalue = value;
int len = 0;
if (value < 0)
{
uvalue = (uint64) 0 - uvalue;
a[len++] = '-';
}
len += pg_ulltoa_n(uvalue, a + len);
a[len] = '\0';
return len;
}
/*
* pg_ultostr_zeropad
* Converts 'value' into a decimal string representation stored at 'str'.
* 'minwidth' specifies the minimum width of the result; any extra space
* is filled up by prefixing the number with zeros.
*
* Returns the ending address of the string result (the last character written
* plus 1). Note that no NUL terminator is written.
*
* The intended use-case for this function is to build strings that contain
* multiple individual numbers, for example:
*
* str = pg_ultostr_zeropad(str, hours, 2);
* *str++ = ':';
* str = pg_ultostr_zeropad(str, mins, 2);
* *str++ = ':';
* str = pg_ultostr_zeropad(str, secs, 2);
* *str = '\0';
*
* Note: Caller must ensure that 'str' points to enough memory to hold the
* result.
*/
char *
pg_ultostr_zeropad(char *str, uint32 value, int32 minwidth)
{
int len;
Assert(minwidth > 0);
if (value < 100 && minwidth == 2) /* Short cut for common case */
{
memcpy(str, DIGIT_TABLE + value * 2, 2);
return str + 2;
}
len = pg_ultoa_n(value, str);
if (len >= minwidth)
return str + len;
memmove(str + minwidth - len, str, len);
memset(str, '0', minwidth - len);
return str + minwidth;
}
/*
* pg_ultostr
* Converts 'value' into a decimal string representation stored at 'str'.
*
* Returns the ending address of the string result (the last character written
* plus 1). Note that no NUL terminator is written.
*
* The intended use-case for this function is to build strings that contain
* multiple individual numbers, for example:
*
* str = pg_ultostr(str, a);
* *str++ = ' ';
* str = pg_ultostr(str, b);
* *str = '\0';
*
* Note: Caller must ensure that 'str' points to enough memory to hold the
* result.
*/
char *
pg_ultostr(char *str, uint32 value)
{
int len = pg_ultoa_n(value, str);
return str + len;
}