On 09/20/2017 07:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> It's also warning that it will copy 16 bytes to a 13 byte structure at
>> lines 518, 1293 and 1294 of src/backend/commands/dbcommands.c. I haven't
>> seen any ill effects of this so far, but it seems to indicate that
>> something is possibly amiss on this compiler with the MemSet macros.
> That's weird. Is it too stupid to figure out that the if() inside
> MemSet evaluates to constant false in these calls? It seems hard to
> see how it would realize that the loop will write 16 bytes if it doesn't
> propagate the constant value forward.
>
> However ... on some other compilers, I've noticed that the compiler seems
> more likely to make "obvious" deductions of that sort if the variables in
> question are marked const. Does it help if you do
>
> - void *_vstart = (void *) (start); \
> - int _val = (val); \
> - Size _len = (len); \
> + void * const _vstart = (void *) (start); \
> + const int _val = (val); \
> + const Size _len = (len); \
>
>
> I don't think there's any strong reason not to just do s/MemSet/memset/
> in these calls and nearby ones, but it would be good to understand just
> what's wrong here. And why it's only showing up in that file; seems
> nearly certain that we have similar coding elsewhere.
>
>
I'll test it.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers