Marina Polyakova <m.polyakova@postgrespro.ru> writes:
> On 18-01-2018 17:56, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Weird. Maybe the gcc bug only manifests with certain optimization
>> flags? That's not what I'd have expected from Victor's theory about
>> why the code is wrong, but if it only shows up some of the time,
>> it's hard to think of another explanation.
> Thank you! Using ./configure CC="gcc" CFLAGS="-m64 -O1" on commit
> 9c7d06d60680 with your patch, I got this:
> [ configure check passes ]
> But make check got the same failures, and I see the same debug output as
> in [1]..
Interesting. Maybe the parameter-passing misbehavior that Victor's
test is looking for isn't the only associated bug.
> P.S. As I understand it, this comment on bugzilla [2] is also about
> this.
> [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83925#c6
Even more interesting, see c7 that was just posted there:
>> Eric Botcazou 2018-01-18 16:22:48 UTC
>> 128-bit types requite 128-bit alignment on SPARC64 so we cannot support that.
So basically, we're outta luck and we have to consider __int128 as
unsupportable on SPARC. I'm inclined to mechanize that as a test on
$host_cpu. At least that means we don't need an AC_RUN test ;-)
regards, tom lane