Re: pgsql: Fix pg_size_pretty() to avoid overflow for inputs close to INT64
От | Dave Page |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgsql: Fix pg_size_pretty() to avoid overflow for inputs close to INT64 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | BANLkTin_oy7biEEzhn6LvfMhvKqpgEhtAQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgsql: Fix pg_size_pretty() to avoid overflow for inputs close to INT64 (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgsql: Fix pg_size_pretty() to avoid overflow for inputs close to INT64
Re: pgsql: Fix pg_size_pretty() to avoid overflow for inputs close to INT64 |
Список | pgsql-committers |
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 6:21 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes: >> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié abr 27 17:10:37 -0300 2011: >>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes: >>>> Apparently this change is causing Moa's SunStudio compiler to fail an >>>> assertion. > >>> [ scratches head... ] Hard to see why, there's nothing at all >>> interesting in that code. > >> I agree, but it fails exactly in that code, and started to fail >> immediately after that patch. > >> Maybe casting the 2 to int64 would fix it? > > I'm not excited about trying random code changes to dodge a compiler bug > with a 24-hour turnaround time. Dave, can you poke at this? I think we may have to award Sun (or whats left of them) the "Bizarre compiler bug of the week" award here. It's actually the val++; that's causing the assertion, but I'm darned if I can get it to work. I've tried spelling out the addition, casting, changing val to an int64*, renaming val, and probably a dozen or so things that are broken, all with no success. Any other ideas? -- Dave Page PostgreSQL Core Team http://www.postgresql.org/
В списке pgsql-committers по дате отправления: