Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance tweak

"Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net> writes:
> Was that with the volatile attribute or not?

I doubt volatile would make any visible performance difference --- the
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS calls that are performance-critical are in places
where the compiler couldn't try to optimize away the fetches anyway.
The volatile qualifier is just needed to cover our rears in case a
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS is used in some fairly small loop with no external
function calls.
        regards, tom lane